More "Climategate"

At the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, Zeke Hausfather has an excellent analysis of the contents of the e-mails that were hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. Climate change skeptics and deniers have been trying to use a few of the e-mails to argue that climate scientists have been covering up data and suppressing dissenting views, and they've taken to calling it whole situation "climategate." Hausfather writes: "These e-mails provide plenty to criticize, but the most widely-publicized quotes often are taken out of context to falsely imply a conspiracy of sorts to hide declining temperatures and a lack of recent warming. A close reading of the e-mails in question reveals a more nuanced picture, with scientists struggling with how to explain uncertainties in complex systems in a world of 60-second sound-bytes and the certainty of blistering condemnations by those ideologically opposed to accepting scientific evidence of anthropogenic warming."

Author: Rudy Baum

Share This Post On

5 Comments

  1. The ClimateGate documents make manifest that the oft claimed ‘consensus’ was the manufactured APPEARANCE of a consensus.

    They also prove a conspiracy (not ‘falsely imply) — perhaps only a small conspiracy, and perhaps only imply a global or other large conspiracy, but they do prove that a group of people, important to the IPCC reports, were in fact conspiring.

    It is now time to BEGIN to do the ACTUAL SCIENCE — in the open and with all voices heard.

  2. I am astounded that Rudy Baum, and ACS as a whole, appear to be turning a blind eye to the issue of scientists willfully deleting data and correspondence relevant to a FOIA request. The world’s nations are discussing enacting measures that will alter the global economy at the many trillions-of-dollars level, and yet you are willing to tolerate and even excuse unethical behavior by the very scientists whose research forms the basis for these decisions? How would you have treated Pons and Fleischman if they had not opened their lab notebooks to the world scientific audience – much less deleted their raw data? “What more is there to say?” indeed.

  3. You are not the only one who is astounded and extremely disgusted. Rudi Baum and his fellow lackeys at the ACS will do anything to be politically correct and maintain the staus quo. Interestingly enough the American Physical Society is reexamining their stance on Global Warming in light of the CRU news. Rudi Baum and the ACS (read this week’s editorial) keep spouting mindless drivel and sacrificing the scientific reputations of the ACS to please the Climate Change Nazis. They are also completely indifferent to the opinions of ACS members. Something to remeber at the next ACS election. What’s next? Rudi Baum peddling Al Gore’s carbon credit offsets to ACS members? Nothing would surprise me.

  4. Rudy, what would a scientist have to do, in your opinion, to be fired? These scientists destroyed raw data and refused to share other data so that others might try to replicate their work. They kept papers they disagreed with out of industry journals. Should they not be fired? And if not, why not, and what instead is a firing offense?

  5. The UK media has now reported that Phil Jones did indeed break the laws surrounding their version of the Freedom of Information Act. Please tell me that C&EN will salvage some of their credibility on this subject by publishing an editorial calling for Jones’ firing from East Anglia and prosecution for his crime. Think of what you would be saying if the situation were reversed and a “denier” was hiding information from the public.