Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Thought Life

Home
Evangelical
An Explosive Evaluation of the Global Warming Movement

An Explosive Evaluation of the Global Warming Movement

Last updated on: December 7, 2009 at 9:23 pm by Owen Strachan

An Explosive Evaluation of the Global Warming Movement 2009-12-07T21:23:48-07:00 Owen Strachan

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Stephen Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC has just published a helpful overview of the documents related to the Climate Research Unit that hackers recently uncovered. I blogged about this last week, but this analysis, entitled “Scientists Behaving Badly” and found in The Weekly Standard, is a must-read for anyone who has invested time in thinking about climate change and whether the role of humans in it in our modern era demands sweeping reform and massive investment that some have called for.

I do not submit because I dismiss climate change due to its advocates. I know little about this sort of thing and am quite open to being led by scientists on this matter. However, the findings released illegally by hackers present devastating evidence that suggests that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the climate change movement and that scientists within it are acting according to political, not scientific, concerns.

Many of us wondered whether this might be so in light of the weight attached to climate change. Almost overnight, this issue became a moral matter, one demanding the full support of all. This has leaked into the Christian community, and many people are confused by this subject. Is global warming happening in abnormal ways today? Should we support legislation, however costly, to attempt to push it back if so? These and other questions confront thinking, moral Christians.

But the fact of the matter seems to be that climate change is far–increasingly far, actually–from the foregone conclusion that it might seem to be. The CRU documents–many of them email exchanges from scientists seeking to prove that humans are causing damaging climate change–show a house in disarray. Hayward’s lengthy piece reveals that there is explosively damaging evidence against climate change advocates in these documents.

The following presents snapshots from his article that are worth reading. I’ll give you the key quotations first, and then give a number of other quotations that highly interested readers should consider. See the bold sections for the essence of the quotation.

***************

The global warming movement is rapidly losing altitude:

Slowly and mostly unnoticed by the major news media, the air has been going out of the global warming balloon. Global temperatures stopped rising a few years ago, much to the dismay of the climate campaigners. The U.N.’s upcoming Copenhagen conference–which was supposed to yield a binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction treaty as a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol–collapsed weeks in advance and remains on life support pending Obama’s magical intervention. Cap and trade legislation is stalled on Capitol Hill. Recent opinion polls from Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen, ABC/Washington Post, and other pollsters all find a dramatic decline in public belief in human-caused global warming. The climate campaigners continue to insist this is because they have a “communications” problem, but after Al Gore’s Nobel Prize/Academy Award double play, millions of dollars in paid advertising, and the relentless doom-mongering from the media echo chamber and the political class, this excuse is preposterous. And now the climate campaign is having its Emperor’s New Clothes moment.

A prominent supporter of climate change reveals that he is “deeply shaken” by the CRU emails:

There are a few notable exceptions, such as Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who in the past has trafficked in the most extreme climate mongering: “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” Monbiot wrote in a November 23 column. “The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. . . . I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. . . . I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.” Monbiot has joined a number of prominent climate scientists in demanding that the CRU figures resign their posts and be excluded from future climate science work. The head of the CRU, Phil Jones, announced last week that he will temporarily step down pending an investigation.

Hayward notes that the emails do not disprove global warming, but rather show that the movement is politicized(and likely compromised):

The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. What they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand. In the understatement of the year, CRU’s Phil Jones, one of the principal figures in the controversy, admitted the emails “do not read well.” Jones is the author of the most widely cited leaked e‑missive, telling colleagues in 1999 that he had used “Mike’s Nature [magazine] trick” to “hide the decline” that inconveniently shows up after 1960 in one set of temperature records. But he insists that the full context of CRU’s work shows this to have been just a misleading figure of speech. Reading through the entire archive of emails, however, provides no such reassurance; to the contrary, dozens of other messages, while less blatant than “hide the decline,” expose scandalously unprofessional behavior. There were ongoing efforts to rig and manipulate the peer-review process that is critical to vetting manuscripts submitted for publication in scientific journals. Data that should have been made available for inspection by other scientists and outside critics were released only grudgingly, if at all. Perhaps more significant, the email archive also reveals that even inside this small circle of climate scientists–otherwise allied in an effort to whip up a frenzy of international political action to combat global warming–there was considerable disagreement, confusion, doubt, and at times acrimony over the results of their work. In other words, there is far less unanimity or consensus among climate insiders than we have been led to believe.

The predominant paleoclimatological model of climate change is a hockey stick, a model unveiled some years ago:

In 1998 three scientists from American universities–Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes–unveiled in Nature magazine what was regarded as a signal breakthrough in paleoclimatology–the now notorious “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction (picture a flat “handle” extending from the year 1000 to roughly 1900, and a sharply upsloping “blade” from 1900 to 2000). Their paper purported to prove that current global temperatures are the highest in the last thousand years by a large margin–far outside the range of natural variability. The medieval warm period and the little ice age both disappeared. The hockey stick chart was used prominently in the 2001 IPCC report as “smoking gun” proof of human-caused global warming. Mann and his coauthors concluded that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.”

This model is now seriously questioned even by advocates of climate change:

Case closed? Hardly. The CRU emails reveal internal doubts about this entire enterprise both before and after the hockey stick made its debut. In a 1996 email to a large number of scientists in the CRU circle, Tom Wigley, a top climatologist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, cautioned: “I support the continued collection of such data, but I am disturbed by how some people in the paleo community try to oversell their product.” Mann and his colleagues made use of some of the CRU data, but some of the CRU scientists weren’t comfortable with the way Mann represented it and also seemed to find Mann more than a bit insufferable.

CRU scientist Keith Briffa, whose work on tree rings in Siberia has been subject to its own controversies, emailed Edward Cook of Columbia University: “I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series,” adding that he was tired of “the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage [Mann] has produced over the last few years . . . and (better say no more).”

Cook replied: “I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon[struction], particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. . . . It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”

In yet another revealing email, Cook told Briffa: “Of course [Bradley] and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only ‘half-empty’; it is demonstrably ‘broken’. I come more from the ‘cup half-full’ camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it is.”

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the CRU’s shoddy work comes from the files of the researcher attempting to collate the data on climate change:

The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, over 100,000 words long, paints a picture of haphazard data handling that would get almost any private sector researcher fired. Among the many damning items included in Harris’s narrative are more instances of “hiding the decline” such as “Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid the decline)” and “Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!” Worse are Harris’s notes of improperly coded data (or data without codes at all), computer subroutines that don’t work, and near complete chaos: “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!! . . . ” On and on goes Harris’s catalogue of software bugs and data horrors. Finally, this: “OH F– THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”

Some have challenged the “hockey stick” model of climate change, causing major public damage to the model and leading the authoritative American body, the National Academy of Sciences, to conclude thusly:

[A] close reading shows that the NAS report devastated the hockey stick. While the NAS said the hockey stick reconstruction was a “plausible” depiction of 20th-century warming, the report went on to state clearly that “substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.” [Emphasis added.]

Hayward concludes with a couple final points worth reading:

First, we still don’t know whether the medieval warm period was comparable to or even much warmer than current temperatures, and we probably never will know with confidence. So the validating or refining of today’s climate models will have to go forward without this piece of the puzzle being filled in. Second, a close reading of the entire email archive allows some distinctions to be drawn among the CRU circle. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore seem indisputably to be the bad actors (it was Santer who said he was “very tempted” to “beat the crap out of” skeptic Pat Michaels). Others in their circle, such as Keith Briffa, Tom Wigley, and Mike Hulme, appear much more scrupulous and restrained about handling the data, uncertainties, and conclusions they put into print.

Finally, here is what Hayward concludes about the CRU fiasco in general:

Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future. Yet the hysteria of the global warming campaigners and their monomaniacal advocacy of absurdly expensive curbs on fossil fuel use have led to a political dead end that will become more apparent with the imminent collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process. I have long expected that 20 or so years from now we will look back on the turn-of-the-millennium climate hysteria in the same way we look back now on the population bomb hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s–as a phenomenon whose magnitude and effects were vastly overestimated, and whose proposed solutions were wrongheaded and often genuinely evil (such as the forced sterilizations of thousands of Indian men in the 1970s, much of it funded by the Ford Foundation). Today the climate campaigners want to forcibly sterilize the world’s energy supply, and until recently they looked to be within an ace of doing so. But even before Climategate, the campaign was beginning to resemble a Broadway musical that had run too long, with sagging box office and declining enthusiasm from a dwindling audience. Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it’s closing time for the climate horror show.

Wow. This is quite an article, as you can see. Read the whole thing. It is well worth your time, as climate change is one of the more important cultural issues we face today. Even if you don’t like thinking or reading about it, lots of people in the culture are, and it behooves us as thinking Christians to ponder this stuff.

As you can see, the climate change movement is highly politicized. The science is far from a sure thing; the movement itself is fractured; there is steadily increasing uncertainty even among supporters of this cause. We do not need to write the climate change folks off at this point; we should hear them out and wait to see if they can produce hard data. If they can, we may well need to modify the way we live in this world. I’m prepared to do so.

But, if the CRU fiasco exposed above is as bad as it looks, I wonder whether we are a long way from reaching this point. Climate change is notoriously hard to prove, especially when one looks back to eras for which no data exists. Christians would do well, it seems to me, to care for the earth as best we can in our efforts to glorify our Lord, and to avoid falling prey to groupthink and cultural pressure.

environmentalism

academy award

al gore

american enterprise institute

an inconvenient truth

ben santer

climate change

climate research unit

george monbiot

global warming

hockey stick reconstruction

keith briffa

kyoto protocol

michael mann

national academy of sciences

nobel peace prize

stephen hayward

tom wigley

university of east anglia

Previous Post

December 5, 2009

The Link 12.5.09: Great Music, Scanwiches, and Climate Change

Next Post

December 8, 2009 Low Impact Man: A Funny Take on the Unsustainability of the "Sustainable" Life

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "heaven is a world of love" 9Marks abortion academics Adam Sandler adoption adultery adulthood aesthetics aging ajith fernando al mohler alice walker America american education american shaolin apologetics architecture atheism atonement august rush barack obama baseball basketball batman beauty berry mauve or muted wine Bible biblemesh biblical studies biblical theology biblical womanhood billy wolfe blogging bob kauflin body book culture book reviews boston celtics boston college bowdoin college bowling alone boyce college boyhood Brooke Fraser Bruce Ware bullies bullying business business ethics C.S. Lewis calling calvinism canada Capitol Hill Baptist Church carl henry carl trueman carolyn mahaney cbmw celebrity Chicago child's play children Christ Christ and culture Christian education christian hedonism christian ministry Christian vocation christian womanhood christianity and culture church government church history church internships church life church matters blog church membership church planting cities CJ Mahaney colin adams college college admissions college life college ministry collin hansen complementarianism conferences congregational worship conservative thought consumerism conversion council on biblical manhood & womanhood council on biblical manhood and womanhood covenant life church creativity credo magazine credobaptism cross movement crossway books crucifixion culinary culture cultural engagement cultural theology culture culture shift d. a. carson dads daily mail dan barry dancing with the stars daniel dennett darrell bock dating David Barash davy rothbart death death of God debt desiring God developmental league devotional thoughts dick morris dining disability discipleship doug sweeney douglas groothius economics economy education egalitarianism eliot spitzer ella rose strachan enlightenment entrepreneurs entrepreneurship environmentalism Eric Metaxas ethics evangelical theological society evangelicalism evangelism extended adolescence extreme home makeover family fatherhood feminism fiction film flame food foodstuffs football four gospels frank miller friendship gay gay Christianity gender roles genderblog george marsden girltalk gk chesterton God gospel gospel of John gospel risk gq greek mythology guillermo del toro happiness harold ockenga Harvard health heaven height hell henry center herb london higher education hillsdale hip hop historical theology history holidays holiness Holy Spirit home-school homemaking homes homosexuality hope human dignity human flourishing human life image of God imagination intellectual Christianity intellectual life iron man Islam J.I. Packer james mcavoy James Q. Wilson jeremy lin Jesus Christ jim hamilton joe namath John Calvin John McCain john owen john piper john rockefeller jonathan edwards journalism justice justin taylor kairos journal keira knightlet la times leadership lesbian life of the mind Lifeway links literature Lord's prayer louie giglio love male sex drive mall manhood manners Mark Dever Mark Driscoll marriage mars hill martial virtue martin luther masculinity materialism matthew hall maureen dowd memoirs of an ordinary pastor mentoring military millennials ministry missional missions monergism moral argument morality motherhood music national review nba new atheism new england New Testament new york new york times new yorker newsweek nietzsche northeast notre dame npr obedience oprah oprah's big give orphan care overheated prose award owen wilson pain parenting Park Community Church pastor-theologian pastoral ministry pastors persecution philosophes philosophy political philosophy politics poverty prayer preaching presidency presidential race pro-life professors proverbs psychology public school public square public theology publications quebec quilting race racism radical womanhood rap music rc sproul rebecca walker Reformation 21 relevant magazine religious liberty resources revelation revival richard dawkins richistan risky gospel robbie george robert putnam ron chernow Russ Moore salvation salvo magazine sam harris same-sex attraction sanctification scholarship science scripture secularism seminaries seminary life sex sex drive sexual ethics sexuality sexualized culture shooting sacred evangelical cows shootings simple church singleness social justice social media social networking Southern Baptists southern seminary sovereign grace Spanglish spirituality sports sports illustrated sports injuries stanford steve mccoy suburbia suffering superhero t. suzanne ellder Tea Leoni technology television the darjeeling unlimited the gospel coalition the southern baptist theological seminary the wackness theological journalism theology theology of work thinking Thom Rainer tim challies tim keller time magazine titan Together for the Gospel tom carson tom wolfe tragedy transgender travel trinity trinity evangelical divinity school truth twitter ty pennington unashamed workman Uncategorized violence virtue vocation voddie baucham war wayne gretzky wayne grudem weddings wikipedia will smith williams winnie hu womanhood work world magazine worship writing youth sports

Select a Month August 2021 July 2021 May 2021 March 2021 December 2020 October 2020 June 2020 February 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 November 2017 October 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who cried at the tomb of Lazarus?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David John Peter Jesus