UK press has cool reaction to second batch of UEA emails
- 24 Nov 2011, 15:00
- Ros Donald
Contributors to the comments sections of skeptic websites may be
getting the popcorn
out to sit in front of their computers and watch new revelations
emerge from the second release of hacked emails from the University
of East Anglia (UEA) on Monday, but UK news journalists have all
but ignored the story.
Despite the fact that the new release has come the week before the
UN
Durban Climate Change Conference is due to start, apparently
with the intention of disrupting the lead-up to the event, even the
Daily Mail, hardly the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's
biggest fan, sounded unimpressed by the latest batch of
emails.
Indeed, only two pieces appeared after UEA gave a press conference
yesterday.
The Independent's environmental editor Michael McCarthy
gives a straight report
today of comments by UEA vice-chancellor Edward Acton and
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) member, Phil Jones.
McCarthy notes that the university has geed up its response time
in contrast to a rather dismal performance in 2009, and has been
quick to reiterate that the release doesn't subvert climate
science.
The Express, meanwhile, puts a rather
misleading headline on a piece that draws heavily on
yesterday's coverage (which picked a few of the hacker's
highlighted quotes, as we discussed),
as well as whacking in some soundbites from skeptic bloggers and
lobbyists. Andrew Montford calls for an enquiry, and Benny Peiser
says the emails in which scientists debate their findings show
"scientists are less certain about the science than they
proclaim".
So why isn't this another huge story?
Well, first - short of revealing the edifying information that one
scientist had to go for an operation at one stage - so far it seems
there is nothing qualitatively new in the emails. Presumably the
hacker picked the best bits to release in 2009 - beside which, the
new information seems pretty repetitive.
Even further evidence that scientists may have avoided responding
the hundreds of Freedom of Information Act requests they received -
which
Fox News and the GWPF have predictably noted - isn't very
meaty, because we already knew about it.
It's also notable that the University at the centre of the story
have been more pro-active this time around, holding a press
conference and issuing explanatory notes to some of the snippets of
emails that have been doing the rounds. Perhaps this reflects that
Phil Jones is in a better state of mind than last time, and maybe
they've also learned a few lessons by being put through the
wringer.
BEST: a "different scientific background"
The Mail also mentions that the release has come "against
a rather different scientific background":
"[A]fter the Berkeley Earth Surface
Temperature review of climate-science data by prominent climate
sceptic Richard Muller, which analysed 1.6 billion temperature
records, and concluded that global warming was a genuine
effect."
The Mail and the majority of climate scientists part
ways here, though - even Muller says it makes sense to
reduce CO2 emissions - with the paper claiming it's unclear who
is responsible for the warming.
The political background has also changed
The lead-up to Copenhagen - the period when the first emails
were leaked - was unusual due to the public and political
confidence that countries would reach a binding deal, and
unprecedented public support for consensus climate science. US
President
Barack Obama had yet to suffer the anti-environment onslaught
from Republicans that has led to the abandonment of cap and trade
legislation and repeated attempts to gut the country's
Environmental Protection Agency.
As we know, the countries didn't manage a
binding accord. Meanwhile, polls appear to show a
fall-off in public support for or confidence in national and
international climate change mitigation, although many commentators
think that 'Climategate' mark one is only partly responsible for
this.
As Canada's National Post says:
"Whatever the case, it is clear that
public opinion on global warming is now as muddled as the science
seems to be. While there appears to be growing skepticism about the
theory of man-made climate change, there still appears to be a
willingness to accept measures to curb climate emissions."
The hype in the days before the Durban conference pales in
comparison to the excitement before Copenhagen - in the UK, the
media appear far more interested in discussing domestic measures
such as
energy bills than international talks. Although the Guardian
obviously know their be-sandled audience still loves a bit of
interactive climate diplomacy timeline.
No doubt there will be some follow-up articles, with climate
skeptic commentators continuing to plough their furrow, but with no
Copenhagen-sized bubble to burst with the release of old emails,
wider enthusiasm appears to have waned sooner rather than
later.