Climatologist Raymond Bradley has come out fighting in his new short book Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists as the Earth Heated Up. It’s a lively albeit sobering narrative which recounts his and others’ experience of harassment, character assassination
Lately, Republicans in the House of Representatives have been derided for their attitudes for climate change here. This is not because of any political ill will but because of their ignorance that is absolutely appalling. It brings me no pleasure to write about people who earn $174,000 a year to be informed decision makers being anything but. But in the interest of shedding light on
A six-month inquiry into the conduct of some of the world’s leading climate scientists has concluded that they did not manipulate data or distort the results of their studies of global warming. The independent panel, headed by former British civil servant Sir Muir Russell, was formed by the University of East Anglia after hackers stole 13 years of e-mails from scientists at the university’s Climatic Research Unit and then used the e-mails to accuse the scientists of manipulating and suppressing data. After reviewing the e-mails, Russell’s panel said that “their rigor and honesty
Mike Hulme’s “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” came out in May and was recently listed as one of the “Best Books of 2009” by The Economist.
A former member of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University – home to the infamous “ClimateGate” e-mails – Hulme has been a polarizing figure for all sides in the climate debate.
“Too often, when we think we are arguing over scientific evidence for climate change, we are in fact disagreeing about our different political preferences, ethical principles and value systems,” Hulme told the Wall Street Journal about the leaked e-mails. “Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles.”
With “Why We Disagree About Climate Change,” Hulme argues how the inevitable gaps and ambiguities of science have laid open a wellspring of emotion, rendering it impossible to disentangle scientific insight from politics and culture.
Hulme spoke with CleanTechies on December 18, shortly before Copenhagen closed.
So, in case you missed it, there is evidently some kind of climate change conference underway this week. And, its not going well. Still, even if we imagine for a moment that a binding international treaty with hard carbon caps could be salvaged from the wreckage in Copenhagen, there is more news from home in the NYT showing that the US is not up to the climate change challenge at home.
We are developing the technology, but Matthew Wald’s story about a “false start” for smart grids in California and elsewhere provides yet another lens to focus on the policy deficit that is crippling every effort at meaningful energy reform. And, with public will degraded by global recession and climate change skepticism calcifying thanks to Climategate, policymakers cannot afford many more (or, anymore?) false starts.