Tom Fuller writes an interesting piece in which he considers whether there is evidence of an international conspiracy to create a "global warming scam" in the CRU emails. He concludes, correctly in my opinion, that there isn't. There is, however, enough bad stuff in there that we should still be worried:
I think that they had an informal conspiracy going to pump each others' careers up, peer review each others' papers, and slam any skeptics or lukewarmers who wandered within punching range - and later, after they realised how badly they had acted, they conspired to evade the Freedom of Information Act.
Anyone who has had an honest review of the emails will find this very hard to argue with.
There is a marked prevalence of conspiracy theories in the global warming debate. Many of the sceptic side are quick to shout "scam" and "fraud" and to see the whole thing as a left-wing plot, but as some thinking commentators on the right have noted, it is hard to read the emails and to not conclude that the scientists are sincere in their belief in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. This doesn't in any way excuse the malfeasance that so many of us have suspected but have still been shocked to see laid out in the emails in such devasting clarity.
One should also point out of course that conspiracy theories about global warming are not restricted to the right. Throughout the emails there is a sense that mainstream climatologists cannot conceive of anyone criticising them or questioning their findings for anything other than nefarious reasons. The Hockey Team seem to see the spectre of "big oil" lurking behind every critic. This is conspiracy theory writ large, and it's this paranoia that seems to have caused the lurch into unacceptable behaviour by some of the most important climatologists around.
But this is besides the point. If there is no conspiracy, how then has the global warming hypothesis developed this apparently unstoppable momentum?
My pet theory is that the answer lies in what economists call public choice theory. In essence, this is the idea that the inhabitants of bureaucracies are pursuing their own self-interest rather than the public good, as the myth-makers would have it. Public choice theory has proved to be a remarkably powerful way of understanding the world and the otherwise inexplicable behaviour of the public sector.
Until now, my ideas about the use of the theory as a means of understanding the global warming phenomenon from a sociological point of view have been very much a "pet theory" with little by way of supporting evidence, but yesterday some new evidence fell into my lap.
Some time ago I requested copies of the minutes of the management board of the Met Office (MO). As is normal in these cases, the bureaucracy has ignored the statutory imposed timescales, but they have now finally delivered up what they are willing to deliver. Again, predictably, and in a move eerily reminscent of the CRU, they have tried to hide behind all manner of exemptions, most of which simply do not apply. I'll write more about this another time. For now, let's see what we've got.
The snippets delivered up extraordinarily thin and even the pathetic snippets have been redacted for one reason or another. However, they do provide what I think is something of an insight into what motivates senior staff at the Met Office. Is it the public interest - in other words an answer to some of the questions swirling around the global warming debate? Or is it something else? Here are some extracts of the extracts:
- There had been some good media coverage for the Met Office following the release of the Stern Report.
- RN offered his congratulations to those who had been involved in providing the underpinning science for the Stern Report. There were good opportunities for the Met Office arising from the Report.
- Reflect opportunities for growth in Climate Programme. Quantify potential opportunities within text. (Page 30). Tone of text changed to reflect that figures are realistic but that there is significant potential upside on Climate revenue from Government.
- DH noted that on a Google search for climate change the Met Office did not even appear on the first page and indeed appeared below the BBC and the Tyndall Centre.
- RN asked about the IPCC report. MH explained that the Met Office were well positioned for the release of the report next week and the consultancy team had been lined up to go out with follow up messages. JMi added that he would be appearing on a Newsnight debate although it is possible it would be more about economics than climate change.
- XXX gave a brief overview of the Communication Strategy. DH commented that it was important to engage the press on climate change to ensure that they give the issue the 'slant' that the Met Office wanted.
- BH asked that the Team think widely about their marketing strategy across a range of activities and not just climate change.
- MH explained that a number of energy companies last year co-funded a climate change and energy study and that some of the companies have decided to fund a second-phase of the project - our researchers are involved. MH noted that it would now be prudent to pinpoint specific companies to develop business opportunities.
- SN presented the Climate Change Strategy paper and stated that there was a need for an overarching policy which would guide the exploitation of all the programmes to best effect and make the most of the climate change opportunity.
- With Copenhagen Conference coming in December 09 the Board considered it would be an ideal time to continue to raise the profile of the Met Office, Weather and Climate issues within government.
- The Board noted that the security aspect of climate change would begin to become to the fore in the future and that there was a need to debate how the Met Office could position itself for this. JH outlined that XXX and RV had been scoping around Government in order to establish where the opportunities lie and where relationships need to be built further to understand their needs. JC expressed that there was a need for the Met Office to develop a relationship with John Ashton, the UK Foreign Secretary's Special Representative on Climate JC to provide JH with an introduction to John Ashton, UK Foreign Secretary's Special Representative on Climate Change.
There are more like this, but I'm sure you get the drift by now. One would hope to see earnest discussion of what areas of climate change were priorities for spending, for consideration of whether what scientific questions needed answering and so on. But all you can see are a group of bureaucrats discussing how they can expand their feifdoms and get the attention of their political masters. You are welcome to review the documents yourself at the link above. I don't think I am misrepresenting the contents.
It all rather proves my point. Now we can understand why climatologists hype each others work - it helps expand the pie. Now we can see why they slam the critics - it expands the size of the spread.
This is not about left-wing conspiracies or global government. It's about bureaucratic gluttony and excess [update: and here I mean bureaucracy in the widest sense, covering both scientists and administrators.]. To me, the global warming crisis looks not like a plot hatched in a dimly-lit room in the depths of Al Gore's office, but like a feeding frenzy for the public sector that has got out of control.