Science, lies, and stolen emails
As this is a blog about medicine, I haven’t written much about global warming. Moreover, until a few months ago, I was a bit of a skeptic about the science behind global warming. My skepticism was centered on a few key points that I didn’t feel had been adequately addressed:
Of course, my feelings on global warming would demolish my bona fides to be skeptical about alternative medicine and other pseudoscience. However, I thought the true global warming deniers (and even more so, those who deny the human cause of global warming) were true pseudoscientists, so I decided to study it myself, learning as much as I could about the subject. As I did, my skepticism faded. I found out that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t as warm as I presumed, and that there is little global evidence that it was actually warmer then compared to today. In fact, regional differences in temperature can be large. I guess it goes back to correlation vs. causation. I was being pseudoscientific in my early thinking about global warming.
Actually, my discomfort with the much of what I was hearing from global warming deniers was similar to what I read from the anti-vaccination crowd. Each of the climate change denier’s pseudoscience is easily debunked.
Recently, emails from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU) were hacked, stolen and publicized. Setting aside the legality of stealing private emails, the issues that arose in the emails are three-fold:
Honestly, I don’t care that much about the first two points, because this is just one data point in all of the research in climate change. The evidence is still overwhelming. In fact, this particular CRU research group was studying tree-ring data to correlate it to temperature change, one of many many data points that contribute to the analysis of global warming and its causes. And if they actually did what is claimed (how we write emails is a subject of many studies, and sometimes we write in tones that may not make sense out of context) then those scientists should be upbraided.
As for the third point, it just isn’t true. The two studies discussed in the emails were both published. Science thrives on intense discussions to arrive at a consensus, so even though each study did not support the current theory of climate change, they were published.
Nature, one of the most respected science journals, in a recent editorial stated “a fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories.” In other words, there is nothing there. Whatever may be the truth or lie about what was done at the Clinical Research Unit, global warming is a fact. To further quote Nature:
First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.
By Michael W Simpson
- First, I was unconvinced that current temperatures exceeded that of the Medieval Warm Period, a period of warm climate in the North Atlantic from about 800 to 1300. During this time, the weather was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize Greenland and to support a settlement in Newfoundland.
- Second, California glaciers (yes California has numerous glaciers), like Palisade Glaciers in the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges were only about 700 years old, so obviously (to me), it’s colder today than it was before these glaciers formed.
- Third, the earth is just so complicated, it might take hundreds if not thousands of years of data to see any real trends.
Of course, my feelings on global warming would demolish my bona fides to be skeptical about alternative medicine and other pseudoscience. However, I thought the true global warming deniers (and even more so, those who deny the human cause of global warming) were true pseudoscientists, so I decided to study it myself, learning as much as I could about the subject. As I did, my skepticism faded. I found out that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t as warm as I presumed, and that there is little global evidence that it was actually warmer then compared to today. In fact, regional differences in temperature can be large. I guess it goes back to correlation vs. causation. I was being pseudoscientific in my early thinking about global warming.
Actually, my discomfort with the much of what I was hearing from global warming deniers was similar to what I read from the anti-vaccination crowd. Each of the climate change denier’s pseudoscience is easily debunked.
Recently, emails from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU) were hacked, stolen and publicized. Setting aside the legality of stealing private emails, the issues that arose in the emails are three-fold:
- Did researchers attempt to hide or change raw data?
- Did that data contradict the scientific consensus on global warming?
- Did climate change supporters try to quash publication of research from climate change deniers?
Honestly, I don’t care that much about the first two points, because this is just one data point in all of the research in climate change. The evidence is still overwhelming. In fact, this particular CRU research group was studying tree-ring data to correlate it to temperature change, one of many many data points that contribute to the analysis of global warming and its causes. And if they actually did what is claimed (how we write emails is a subject of many studies, and sometimes we write in tones that may not make sense out of context) then those scientists should be upbraided.
As for the third point, it just isn’t true. The two studies discussed in the emails were both published. Science thrives on intense discussions to arrive at a consensus, so even though each study did not support the current theory of climate change, they were published.
Nature, one of the most respected science journals, in a recent editorial stated “a fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories.” In other words, there is nothing there. Whatever may be the truth or lie about what was done at the Clinical Research Unit, global warming is a fact. To further quote Nature:
First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.
By Michael W Simpson