WWF-CANADA BLOG
News, views and analysis from our team as we work to protect the future of our planet.
The WWF is run at a local level by the following offices...
- WWF Global
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Austria
- Australia
- Belgium
- Bhutan
- Bolivia
- Borneo
- Brasil
- Bulgaria
- Cambodia
- Canada
- Caucasus
- Central America
- Chile
- China
- Colombia
- Denmark
- Finland
- France
- Germany
- Greater Mekong
Climategate or bust? Bust it is.
It is a relief to be able to confirm the continued legitimacy of international climate science. At the same time, it’s frustrating that public perceptions were swayed by the negative media over the past months, further confusing people around climate change.
Posted by Zoë Caron
Media headlines in the past five months have not been particularly strengthening to the reputation of climate change science. It all started with a massive email hacking into East Anglia University, site of some of the world’s leading climate scientists who contribute to reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . The hacked emails were coupled with claims that scientists were trying to manoeuvre the data in their favour, thus discrediting the work of the IPCC.
A recent inquiry into the issue was completed by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. They found that the hacked emails show no evidence of foul play on behalf of the scientists: “…insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty we consider that there is no case to answer.”
It was revealed today that Canadian scientists across six federal departments had sent a memo to Jim Prentice, Canada’s Minister of Environment, soon after the hacking occurred, maintaining that the leaked emails were not a cause for questioning the reliability of climate science. The memo included a statement from Environment Canada’s deputy minister, Ian Shugart, ensuring that IPCC assessment reports remain the top source for climate change information.
The IPCC reports thrown into question were ones that project the necessity of the world needing to avoid 2 degrees C of warming. This benchmark is crucial in the planning of emission reductions to deal with the challenges of climate change.
It is a relief to be able to confirm the continued legitimacy of international climate science. At the same time, it’s frustrating that public perceptions were swayed by the negative media over the past months, further confusing people around climate change.
We will continue our efforts to ensure that the best information is communicated so that the world can move forward on addressing one of the most important issues of our time.
13 Responses to Climategate or bust? Bust it is.
-
Dear Zoe,
You conveniently omitted the following section of the report summary:
“The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. We found prima facie evidence to suggest that the UEA found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics.”
And you also neglected to mention this rather important bit in paragraph 93:
“There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
(Source.)
-
Miklos – I would suggest reading the inquiry linked to above. This post is meant to communicate that the accusations that the IPCC and East Anglia scientists faced earlier this year were false. It’s not the level of climate variation that is causing concern; rather, it’s the rate of change.
K – Well said!
Banjo – Excellent points.
Ian – Have you read UNEP’s 2009 report showing that current scenarios are overshooting those projected? May be of interest to you: http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/
DCC – For clarity, the committee reviewed the email hacking incident, not the IPCC reports.
Tony – WWF’s funding comes from individuals, foundations and companies who share our vision for a living planet. Feel free to contact us directly if you have other questions. We look forward to the day that we work ourselves out of a job
Jameson – Yes, the effects we’re seeing are certainly becoming hard to avoid.
R Byrne – Still believe in… science? I’d say there are a few people left…
Bob – Science is rarely “settled”; yet, the IPCC is the best compilation of climate science available to us today.
-
if the ipcc findings are correct, why is there controversy? if the data sets are accurate and reliable, why are they in question? if climate change is man induced, why is there recorded climate variation exceeding those beyond what we have experienced since the advent of the industrial revolution? if the ipcc provides the best science, why are there so many mistakes? why-why-why-why?
-
What I don’t understand is why this has to be such a big issue? We take action and try to use our resources more responsibly and conscientiously and the worst case scenario is that we can’t change what’s happening to our planet, the best case scenario is that we can. But at least we aren’t doing any more harm. What is so bad about that?
-
actually the predictions are pretty much on track and the data sets are good, unfortunately, and we’re already seeing the results of climate change (ice caps melting, temperature shifts, etc… the real bad stuff that I can only assume Ian Mcwhatever was refering to are yet to come but we’re on track for it.)
-
I have an idea that might help solve the global warming crisis.
All of the top scientific organizations in the world should band together, take up a collection, and hire Bill Nye the Science Guy as their spokesperson.
Perhaps he can do for the NAS what Charlton Heston did for the NRA?
Honestly, who could possibly not trust the Science Guy?
Believe it or not, there actually is one such person and his name is Patrick Michaels, one of the more infamous global warming deniers. He’s a member of the Cato Institute, so chances are he’s representing their best interests, similar to the way an attorney represents a client.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute
In the global warming/climate change case, think of public opinion as the jury, the world’s worst polluters as the defendant, and Patrick Michaels as one of their many lawyers. His job is to cloud the issue, muddy the waters, and create doubt in the minds of the public.
Read: Patrick Michaels is a Buffoon
http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/patrick-michaels-is-a-buffoon/
-
Nothing that was predicted 20 years ago has materialized . Nothing that was predicted 10 years ago has materialized. Nothing that was predicted 5 years ago has materialized.
I feel bad for the naysayers, and the climate alarmists . They tried their best with billions of dollars to convince mankind that they are doomed.
My opinion is that we are all doomed….not by ourselves, but it will be a catastrophic event from our solar system which will forever change the earth in a similar way in which the dinosaurs had their run.
Man-made global warming…not a chance. Finally , we can now speak and be heard.
Good luck with the next catastrophy.
Ian -
I am thrilled to hear that a committee of politicians has “peer-reviewed” climate science and given it a clean bill of health.
We can all feel better now.
-
“Climategate or bust? Bust it is”
How very apt.
I wonder if anyone at WWF has given the remotest consideration as to where their funding might come from, when indeed the world has gone bust because of this almighty fraud that you’re so keen to promote. -
Wow, Bob, who’s paying you? “Any intelligent person can see that more debate is needed”? You people have been saying this for thirty years, and now that we are beginning to see the extreme effects of climate change, you still want to hold onto this selfish and obscene ideology until it’s too painfully obvious to do anything about it. There is such a thing as waiting too long.
-
People still believe in this
stuff? Oh well, I guess even Charlie Manson continues to enjoy support. The height of
gullibility. -
The science is by no means settled. All equiries to date have been a whitewash. The IPCC is not sound and you won’t convince the public now. We know they interfered with the peer review process and the raw data sets are garbage. Any intelligent person can see that more debate is needed.
Leave a Reply
About this blog
At WWF-Canada, we're passionate about climate, water and people. Follow us for the latest from Panda HQ.
I am pleasantly surprised, this is actually a very a very good site, with some excellent topics for discussion. The webmaster of this site has carried out a very beneficial job here and I will be back on a typical basis for updates.
Report this comment