Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About ‘Climate-Gate’

AlGoreConfusedJohn Lott writes on Fox News:

A coordinated campaign to hide scientific information about climate change appears unprecedented. Could it wind up costing us trillions?

Science depends on good quality of data. It also relies on replication and sharing data. But the last couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations. Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].” Professor Mann admitted that this was the exchange that he had and explained to the New York Times that “scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem, ‘and not something secret.’” While the New York Times apparently buys this explanation, it is hard to see the explanation for “to hide the decline.”

More on Fox News

, , , , ,

  • Brandon

    it sucks that it's a fox news article. that automatically disqualifies anything there in regardless of whether or not there's any fact whatsoever presented. Disinfo should know by now. oh yea they cater to the “leftists”. I really gotta wonder what RAW would have to say about our current state of affairs.

    • tonyviner

      Fox did it to themselves, they used to be a reputable source of news and information. Nevermind, that was the Bible.

      This sucks for people that really care about the environment AND the truth.

    • Tuna Ghost

      What would RAW say? Probably something like “Stop treating me like I'm an authority you can appeal to”, I bet.

  • 5by5

    I hear a lot of talk about these emails which it seems come from a conversation between a whopping two scientists (not even remotely enough to counteract the thousands of other researchers or their data worldwide), but no printouts of the entire exchange.

    Faux “News” is quite frankly known for intentionally taking people's quotes out of context even when they're public, and because these are supposedly “super-secret squirrel” emails, they have even more opportunity to warp the meaning here.

    Moreover, even if one year's temps or even 5-10 years temps go down, it does not change the larger trend of overall increases which are exponential, nor does it do anything to dispute the altered weather patterns globally, or the loss of habitat or increased extinction rates of a huge number of species from environmental contaminants created by humans.

    In short, this is irrelevant BS.

  • wfzlsster

    By referencing an article from FOX News you discredit the importance of this story. Perhaps that was the idea.

  • kencreten

    I live with a scientist. Trick is used. Hiding a decline might be useful in that people don't understand Science. In fact this “climate-gate” may be exactly what Climate Scientists feared. There is always fighting in Science, always disagreements. The point of Science is to weed out those opinions that don't line up with the facts as shown in the best data we have. Until the data on any known subject is “perfect”, which is not possible, you will never eliminate disagreements in Science. The general population does not understand Science in that almost none understand that Scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. There's plenty of climate data now to show that things very well “may” be heading in a terrible direction. But, it's always possible that Science could be wrong. In a way, Science lives to be wrong, then righted, then be wrong, then righted. People don't in general understand a system where doubt is not only entertained, but absolutely necessary, and I'm guessing that in general people don't understand that disagreement in Science is essential.

    Climate-”gate” is a disaster, but probably not why people think. Scientists generally can't get messages through to people because they are too ignorant of Science itself. Again, the word “trick” is used often in Science, and does not mean “untruth.”

21