Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
However, because of its prominence, Mann
et al.
's research (1998,
1999) soon came in for criticism. Some critics took issue with certain
details of the research, while a minority went further and questioned
the validity of the data and analysis summarised in the hockey stick
diagram. In two peer review papers, Americans Willie Soon and Sallie
Baliunas, writing together and with other colleagues, surveyed already
published research into past temperature records (Soon and Baliunas,
2003; Legates
et al.
, 2003). Their analysis suggested that significant
northern hemisphere natural warming during the medieval period had
been downplayed by Mann
et al.
(1998, 1999). Mann and many oth-
ers rebutted the analysis vigorously in the science journal
Eos
(Mann
et al.
, 2003). Even so, Soon and others' criticisms were voiced in the
United States Senate by James Inhofe (among others) in order to cast
doubt on whether the United States had to reduce its GHG emis-
sions. In July 2003, Senator Inhofe famously asked: 'could it be that
man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on
the American people?' Shortly after, Canadians Stephen McIntyre and
Ross McKitrick (2003) published a paper in the journal
Energy and
Environment
that echoed the findings of Soon and the others.
Six years later, across the Atlantic, the Climate Research Unit (CRU)
of the University of East Anglia found itself at the centre of a contro-
versy even larger than the hockey stick one. In the lead up to the 2009
United Nations Copenhagen conference on reducing greenhouse gas
reductions, thousands of private emails between senior CRU scientists
were leaked. Some of the emails appeared to suggest that these scien-
tists were suppressing (or would suppress) evidence that contradicted
the scientific consensus articulated in the IPCC assessment reports.
Shortly after, several cryospheric researchers challenged a statement in
the fourth assessment report predicting the melting of most Himalayan
glaciers by 2035 (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC chair Dr Rajendra Pachauri
acknowledged the error in early 2010, but argued that it did not detract
from the findings of the fourth assessment report.
Both of these recent 'scandals' have led to a set of inquiries, which
have produced recommendations about the peer review process, scien-
tific integrity and honesty, and the working procedures of the IPCC.
Together, 'Climate-gate' and 'Glacier-gate' (as they've become known)
have also given encouragement to the small minority of sceptics within
the world of climate science, and the larger group of doubters outside
it. In the United States, the Heartland Institute is a notable umbrella
organisation (and facilitator) for climate change scepticism and has set
up the NIPCC - the Non-Governmental International Panel on Cli-
mate Change. The Panel's compendious first report (NIPCC, 2009)
has been followed by a second (interim) report (NIPCC, 2011), with
both designed to challenge the IPCC 'consensus' on the 'reality' of
anthropogenic climate change.
