With the Obama administration prepping for the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December, and The note ii taking a chance on love download.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454″>Congress mulling over “cap and trade” legislation, those who advocate combating climate change should be celebrating. But the stakes changed last week, when hackers illegally gained access to e-mail exchanges between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia.
“In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical ‘trick’ in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as ‘idiots’,” according to the New York Times. Other e-mails discussed the best ways to argue against skeptics. Skeptics and opponents of “cap and trade” have latched on the e-mails, citing them as evidence that many climate scientists are skewing the real data to argue a political point. It won’t be long before Hannity is touting this as part of a conspiracy to stunt economic growth and promote liberal environmentalism.
What exactly is so upsetting about these e-mails though? Put aside the fact that it would be a huge logical leap to assume that these scientists are at all representative of the vast majority of climate scientists. What would be wrong with scientists considering how best to counter the arguments of their opponents? Climate change skeptics consistently level attacks against climate scientists, saying they are beholden to progressive environmentalist visions and will slant the truth. (I can’t wait for Fox News to use that.) Their reputations are challenged in public; should we really expect them to turn the other cheek? Of course they want to be as prepared as possible when offering their interpretations of real data.
As for calling skeptics “idiots,” who really cares? Aw, are the skeptics’ feelings hurt? Do they need a hug? Everyone writes e-mails that are not meant to be, nor should be, public.
This shouldn’t be a big deal, but it will be. The efforts of climate change skeptics are monumental, and they will find any excuse to stunt legislative efforts. Climate scientists need to be as careful as possible, but they were not. I know, I know — the e-mails were obtained illegally — but they should never have been written at all. When billions of dollars are on the line, nothing is off the table.
I am not a scientist, nor do I have any training in Climate science but from all of the articles I have read two things come to mind for you to look into for a broader view.
The first is – (and I could be wrong) but the CRU is considered the “Gold Standard” when it comes to temperature data. (which the raw data is now missing.) I think many scientist have based their models on this data. GIGO (garbage in garbage out)
Second – The real smoking gun is in the software code, not the emails that show the fraud. This link provides a detailed examination of just some of the code.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
Also look for the Harry_Read_Me.txt – this is a journal of a programer who worked for 3 years trying to fix all the problems with the data and his frustration with false data.
and on a personal note, I don’t mind the moniker of “Idiots”, as it forces me to continue to learn. The smartest thing I ever did was admit i don’t know everything thus making me a skeptic about many things and forcing me to look for my own information.
The purloined emails that many now call ‘Climategate’ underscore the need for the United States to convene our own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission.
The Climate Research Unit’s emails show small-minded, embattled thinking that reeks of zealotry, not science. It appears the researchers weren’t beyond drawing conclusions that were relatively unsupported. Two of the authors, Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth, were the lead authors of one of the most important chapters in the United Nations Fourth Assessment Report. This is no small matter since the EPA, in its recent move to boost regulation of greenhouse gases, based its conclusions on the UN reports.
For twenty years I believed in man-made global warming theory, but the evidence has changed. During that period we have had ten years of warming then ten years of little or no warming. I blame my confusion on the United Nations for getting ahead of their facts. When they claimed CO2 drives global warming, I think they were more concerned about politics and funding than science. One only needs to look at their track record: UN forecasts do not fit what actually happened.
- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
Today (December 1) there is another New York Times article worth reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=2
Did anybody read the response to the hackers by the University of Anglia, the place that the emails were stolen from?