John Hayward Posted: 25 November 2009
Keywords: Science & Technology, The Environment,
'At an ethical level the scientific community, like the rest of society, can only function as it practises values which resonate with its Christian roots, such as truth-telling and co-operation. Currently these are maintained within the community largely on utilitarian grounds, but those grounds may eventually prove insufficiently robust. Naturalism has no resources to generate or justify such values. As a philosophy it provides a poor option for the healthy functioning of the scientific enterprise.' (Denis Alexander (1999) Can science explain everything? Scientific naturalism and the death of science)
Whistleblower or hacker? Given the admission by one of the BBC's climate correspondents that he received copies of private emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) more than five weeks before they were leaked into the public domain last week, but chose not to report the story (one can't help but ask why...it does seem very poor journalism), a concerned insider appears to be most likely.
Whatever the truth, what the emails actually reveal proves that we were right to warn about the fate of truth-telling and co-operation in a scientific community bereft of its Christian roots. For, evidence that climate change scientists have manipulated the data to fit their preconceived beliefs and have prevented access by their peers to the raw data behind their conclusions simply undermines yet further public trust in the institutions at the heart of modern society - first the banks, then Parliament, now academia.
That there have long been serious and fundamental problems with how the scientific process has been manipulated with regards to the global warming hypothesis has been evident to anyone who was willing to look at the evidence. In relation to the question of how raw data has been manipulated, I think one of the most insightful graphs is the following from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) showing the effect of the adjustments they have made to the actual temperature observations, suggesting that most of the reported 'global warming' since 1960 appears to have been caused by these adjustments. Given that these are based on multiple assumptions, it is quite reasonable to suppose our adjustments are incorrect, especially in view of how poor climate modelling predictions to date have proved and how little even the experts claim actually to understand – to quote one of the leaked emails: 'The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.'
The problem with what now amounts to the scientific equivalent of the MPs' expenses scandal, is that apparent exaggerations regarding the environmental impact of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions detracts from broader questions concerning our unsustainable lifestyles. We have noted previously that the human population is living far beyond its means. Yet, less than two weeks from the United Nations' Climate change conference in Copenhagen, it now seems that other Christian values such as compassion and justice are all the more likely to fall by the wayside.
Thankfully, assurance about the future dispels any cause for present despair: 'The creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.' (Romans 8:19-21)
There seems to be a growing tendency to adopt "trial by blog". Allegations of misconduct have been made that need to be properly investigated by the appropriate competent authority. Instead of waiting for the outcome of such an investigation, the allegations are being promulgated across cyberspace and are being used to attack the integrity of the whole IPCC process.
Have you given any thought to the distress caused to individuals working in CRU and their families by these allegations being promulgated so widely before the facts have been properly investigated
The scientific community are a subset of fallen fallible humanity - they are not unique in that - there are enough examples of unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour in Church History to demonstrate that. The scientific process however includes checks and balances to counteract individual failings.
On a specific point, to pull an individual graph out of context and present it without explanation is not particularly helpful. To assess the validity of the adjustments that have been made we need to know what the reasons for it were and the evidence supporting the magnitude of the adjustment used
peter 27 November 2009
Peter, if you click on the graph it will take you to the page on the NOAA's website, from where the graph is derived and where they explain the adjustments that have been made. You may also be interested in the paper 'Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database' (Balling, R. C., Jr., and C. D. Idso (2002), Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(10), 1387, doi:10.1029/2002GL014825), which concludes 'the adjustments to the RAW record result in a significant warming signal in the record that approximates the widely-publicized 0.50ºC increase in global temperatures over the past century.'
I would of course agree with your point concerning the fallen nature of us all - a fundamental premise that lies behind the quotes with which I started and finished.
John Hayward 27 November 2009
This does, I'm sorry to say, seem to be rather clutching at straws! I wish it were otherwise! This data, as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, refers to the USA only - a relatively small part of the globe as a whole! Are you suggesting that similar adjustments have been made to global data? I know nothing about the validity of these particular adjustments, but I have to say it seems to me if they were not made then this data set would be seriously out of step with global data for temperature change, sea level change, and artic sea ice retreat, not to mention of course the indirect evidence of the dramatic rise of CO2 levels in the global atmosphere - the net effects of which are admittedly not certain due to possible counter-balancing factors.
Ultimately, even if climate change were to prove not to be as serious as most reputable scientists believe, the action to be taken to reduce consumption of fossil fuels is just as pressing for reasons of supply limitation. For this reason it is perhaps not helpful to be challenging the global scene, even if serious uncertainties continue to exist at the detailed level, both geographically and scientifically.
On another front we do need to consider the impact of the sharp growth in global population, not only on fossil fuel consumption, but quite generally on the global environment, and on the steadily increasing vulnerabilty of our world to climate change, as the earth becomes more crowded.
Ian Bensted
28.11.09
Ian Bensted 28 November 2009
Ian, I agree completely and have argued repeatedly (along with others on this site, such as Sir Brian Heap) in the past that we need to consider the impact of world population growth on our unsustainable consumption of land, water, food and fossil fuels. In as much as a myopic focus on contentious arguments about greenhouse gases has distracted attention from these wider concerns, then the whole environmental debate has suffered.
At the end of the day, to quote from forthcoming Jubilee Centre material, 'it would be surprising if the extreme sceptics were proved right in thinking [the impact of carbon emissions on climate change] has no effect at all.' However, the point being made above is that, whatever the conclusions about 'Climategate', we are mistaken to place all our faith in science. What Scripture reveals about our past, present and future - and the role of mankind in the stewardship of creation - must dictate our response as believers.
John Hayward 28 November 2009
Thank-you for your quick response. The explanations were helpful and show why it is necessary to adjust the raw data.
To turn to some of the other issues you raise - most environmentally concerned christians and many others would agree with you that Climate Change is a symptom rather than the root cause. That lies in our rebellion against God resulting in our selfish disregard for the welfare of others one sign of which is unsustainable overconsumption. That however does not make it any the less necessary for Climate Change to be addressed. Consumption always involves the use of energy and most of that currently comes from fossil fuels and leads to CO2 emissions.
There are indeed many other issues that are important - water, biodiversity loss, peak-oil,overfishing, food scarcity, soil degradation etc which need to be addressed but that does not mean we should lower the profile of Climate Change rather we need to work on these in parallel.
So far as compassion and justice are concerned these are at the core of the briefing material for Copenhagen produced by organisations such as Tearfund and Christian Aid and their campaigning and advocacy will ensure that these issues continue to be highlighted. Climate Change is increasingly being recognised as an issue of justice even outside of the christian context.
The issue is actually not so much one of science but of the will. This is where christians have a key input to make - we believe in the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
Peter 29 November 2009
It is worth noting that the World Metoerological Organisation and the Met Office have recently published information indicating that the first decade of the 21st Century is the warmest since records began and 2009 looks like being the fifth warmest year. These results include information/analysis from other organisations in addition to CRU. Changing unsustainable lifestyles into sustainable ones is not abstract - it will involve reducing our individual and collective carbon footprint among other things. A christian thinker once said "All truth is God's truth" so to change our behaviour in response to what science indicates are the forseeable consequences of our current behaviour is not to put trust in science rather than God. To carry on with "business as usual" regardless of the warnings is not to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Peter 9 December 2009
Whether you're an AGW sceptic or believer, don't miss this collection of graphs from the central Greenland ice core data putting the famous hockey stick into historical context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI!
Truth-Seeker 14 December 2009
David Rockefeller said in 1994 "All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order". The issue of climate change provides just such a crisis. The Copenhagen Treaty effectively creates a One World Government.
"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton (1887). A One World Government will have absolute power.
John Barton 18 December 2009
The report of the committee chaired by Lord Oxborough has now been released. After consideration of a sample of publications by CRU relating to the temperature reconstructions from the tree ring data and the instrument data set and discussions with the researchers they found no evidence of deliberate scientific malpractice and state that they consider they would have found evidence if there had been any. It is worth reading the original report by following the links from the UEA website as it has been reported in various ways by the media. Now that two of the investigations have reported nothing has been found that undermines the basic results produced by CRU. It seems to me that the situation is very different from that with the banks and parliament
Peter 18 April 2010
The inquiry chaired by Sir Muir Russell has now published its findings. As with the previous inquiries it found nothing that undermines the integrity of the way in which the scientists have gone about their research. His criticisms relate to openness and response to FOI requests. We need now to turn our attention to how we respond to what the scientific evidence is indicating. Science can go some way to telling us what level of temperature increase is likely to result from a given increase in greenhouse gases but it cannot tell us what level of increase is acceptable - that depends on how we value the welfare of those who the evidence indicates will be most affected. Similarly once we decide on a given temperature increase we do not want to go beyond, whether we want to be 50% or 90% confident of not crossing it is again not a scientific question. Given the information now available regarding the implications of increased greenhouse gases we in the nations which are most responsible for their emission find ourselves in a position similar to that of the owner of a bull that is known to be in the habit of goring.
Peter 7 July 2010