Cassandra has moved. Ugo Bardi publishes now on a new site called "The Seneca Effect."

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Climategate 2.0: fool me once.....

Number of searches of the term "Climategate" according to Google Trends. The second release of stolen e-mails, last month ("Climategate-2.0") didn't generate anything like the spike of interest of the first release ("Climategate"), in 2009.

The so-called "Climategate" case of 2009 will remain in history as an example of a highly successful "spin campaign". It had a strong negative effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists and it played an important role in the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks. However, the public has reacted with a big yawn to the second batch of email messages released last month ("Climategate 2.0"). We can see that using "Google Trends" as shown above and also below. The modest spike that correspond to frantic attempts to ignite the interest of the public in Climategate 2.0 is nothing even remotely comparable to the giant spike of the first Climategate.

Apparently in these things there holds the old say, "fool me once...." That is, it is very difficult to fool people twice with the same trick and, indeed, "Climategate 2.0" is turning out to be a big flop.

The most recent polls indicate that concerns about global warming are climbing up again with the public and that's more evidence that you can't fool people forever. So, we still have a chance to win this battle. We need to keep fighting it.


  1. Perhaps if you read and comment on the actual emails.....

    You might, just might change your mind.....

  2. Perhaps if you read and study real climate science, you might, just might, change your mind....

  3. "You might, just might change your mind..... "

    thanks i'll look it up; i didnt know another batch of lies had been published. but i'll reserve my right to not change my mind. not because the the first climategate fiasco was found by many independent enquiry, unsurprisingly to be political troublemaking. it was always going to be. or because even denialist funded studies are now concluding the science was actually correct all along. or denialists always tend to be wrong. and obviously have political and personal vested interests! its because i understand the science; that c02 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its proportion in the atmosphere will inevitably lead to higher temperatures for the earth. call me closed minded if you want, but until you can disprove thermodynamics and come up with a suitable theory why it doesnt work on planet earth i think i'll just stick with the accepted climate theory, the recorded hard evidence of the warming, the evidence of a 'smoking gun' available everywhere you look (millions of cars, houses and factories pumping out an ever growing tonnage of c02) over what will most likely be another batch of blatant lies, cherry picked quotes, misunderstandings, and sophistry from the lunatic fringe. thanks

  4. "The modest spike that correspond to frantic attempts to ignite the interest of the public in Climategate 2.0 is nothing even remotely comparable to the giant spike of the first Climategate. "

    Maybe, but the sad truth is that "climato scepticism" is clearly gaining ground in the US today (even if skewed in stupid ways like warming yes anthropocentric no), and it is also the official position of several Repub candidates.

  5. anthropic not anthropocentric sorry :)

  6. matter what you "believe" you cannot point to one ioata of actual proof of this theory.
    You might want to educate yourself into the facts surrounding the " climate cause" , or the PR battle ..
    There is still today not a single shread of evidence that mankind can alter the global climate..

  7. Dear Vindicated, in Italy we have a say "No one can be more deaf than those who don't want to listen"

  8. Hi Ugo,
    There still are quite a bit of "serious contenders"(serious as a rhetoric form), and even in Europe, like for instance :

    That's why "hammering" the peak oil aspect seems as the best "strategy"(or at least a key aspect of it) if there is one out of this mess.

  9. Oh, well, I am sure that we are going to win this battle; the moral and intellectual misery of these unfortunates is bewildering, and it is starting to appear clear. Yves, climate skepticism is in decline - they are going to lose and they know it. At some point, it will be a rout; but most of them are smart enough that they'll be saying "deniers? Who, us?". It will not be for August, and not even for September, but.....

  10. I am sure that they are mulling over this giant flop of their last trick, "Climategate 2.0". They are thinking that they have to invent something new, but what? I wouldn't want to be in their shoes!

  11. In the meantime we have just experienced the warmest La Niña year on record. The next El Niño, even if it's average, will probably bring a new record warmest year.

    It will be tough for the poor fake skeptics. But I'm sure they'll come up with something. They are not bothered by pesky little things like integrity and honesty. The goal justifies the means.

  12. Hope so Ugo, but meanwhile you also have guys like Gingrich, able to say (with the Koch brothers behind or something) :

    « GINGRICH: But let me make a deeper point. There’s a core thing that’s wrong with this whole city. You said earlier that it would take too long to open up American oil. We defeated Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in three years and eight months because we thought we were serious.

    If we were serious, we would open up enough oil fields in the next year that ---the price of oil worldwide would collapse---. Now, that’s what we would do if we were a serious country. If we were serious… »

    And saying he will dismantle the EPA (environment protection agency) to replace it by an "environment solution agency" or something that would basically let anything go ..

  13. That, too, shall pass. But it will take time.

  14. " The next El Niño, even if it's average, will probably bring a new record warmest year."

    @Neven: let's wait and see.
    The next El Nino isn't due until 2013 and a lot of things (volcanoes) can happen in the meantime.

    The longer we have to wait for the next El Nino, the stronger it will be. Solar energy keeps heating up the tropical Pacific ocean. It has to flow through the atmosphere towards outer space sometime.

    Not all skeptics are poor and fake. There are eminent scientists that are branded as skeptics.

  15. Here is some new stuff from James Hansen...

    in short +2°C above preindustrial level is not "safe" target, it is a prescription for a catastrophe...

    now, I do not need to add that we are already committed towards +2°C - and peak oil will only complicate the issue (through short-termism)...


  16. @Alex

    Why PO would complicate the issue ? Are you thinking geoengineering, CCS and other non solutions ?

    PO can only help, only solution is to consume less fossiles, and high volume based taxes on fossile fuels are the best if not the only policy to accelerate necessary changes.

  17. Yves, unfortunately right now Peak Oil is making climate change much worse. The less efficient we are in using fossil resources, the more greenhouse gases we pump into the atmosphere. This is the real tragedy of our situation.

  18. And how peak oil is making ourself less efficient in fossile use ? Would say quite the contrary.
    But a pity that we don't oblige ourself to do more with higher fossile volume taxes.

    On the other hand peak oil induced collapse might well render us unable to extract and burn remaining coal or tar sands for instance.

  19. Yves, it is not using oil that is becoming less efficient; it is the production process. It is a question of EROEI. Lower EROEI forces the industry to spend more energy to produce the same amount of energy. Lower EROEIs mean higher CO2 emissions for the same amounts of energy produced. Right now, energy production is still increasing, but CO2 emissions are increasing much more.

  20. Ok but overall let's say PO was ten years ago, not much coal in the ground, clearly the picture would be better for AGW.

    I agree that efficiency is overall decreasing in fossile extraction (under typical diminishing return law), but it is overall increasing in fossile use for the net part (which I thought was what you were refering to)

  21. The sad part is that the energy issue was avoidable.  Either of the Integral Fast Reactor or Thorium-based molten-salt reactors (MSRs) could have supplied the world's demands for electricity and industrial process heat without carbon emissions, but we've delayed two (or four) decades and gotten ourselves into this mess.  All because we let the fossil-fuel industry regulate its competition out of existence.



Ugo Bardi is a member of the Club of Rome, faculty member of the University of Florence, and the author of "Extracted" (Chelsea Green 2014), "The Seneca Effect" (Springer 2017), and Before the Collapse (Springer 2019)