Delicious Irony
Newscasters intone, “Scientists have reached a conclusion over global warming.” Al Gore runs around shouting, “The debate is over!” Well, not “over” as much as “orchestrated.” Emails stolen from computers at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK (admittedly a crime, I hope they apprehend the hackers) reveal that there was a concerted effort by both American and European researchers to stifle differing points of view in reports released by the IPCC (that sacrosanct body always cited by global warming fanatics), a restriction of the free-flow of information and data (global warming skeptics were not allowed to view other researchers’ data), and attempts to suppress literature published in scientific journals that did not support human-induced global warming.
Now, true, the emails do not reveal a cover-up or scientists stating that the globe is not warming and just want the Kyoto Protocol for the heck of it. But it still shows a complete break-down of the supposedly objective peer-review system and basic scientific research concerning issues with huge political consequences. Why did the IPCC report not contain differing points-of-view? (Haven’t they heard of a thing called the minority report?)
Funnily enough, this huge issue apparently doesn’t concern the left. Instead, they’re in an uproar about “ethical violations” (which it was, but I don’t seem to remember a similar brouhaha over Sarah Palin’s email account being hacked…) and “that’s only a small part of the picture.” Given that the relevant scientists have either refused comment or declined to deny that those were genuine emails, I’d be a little more worried about the failure of scientists to remain faithful to their predecessors in their methods and a little less about what the other emails might contain.
But in the end, at this important intersection between science and politics, it seems as though one has walked away slightly tarnished…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole...
Amazing stuff! Maybe now we can drill for our own oil or build a refinery for the first time in thirty years.
This shows real malevolence, as opposed to simply bias toward AGW. All scientists try to portray their work as important, and hypothesizing a connection to AGW is a way to elevate one's otherwise boring work to the level of international politics, but this is really outrageous.
While I think what these jackasses did is very anti-science and unethical, I don't think it calls into question the consensus that has developed over climate change. The WSJ article you posted spells out this consensus fairly well:
"Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute one or both of those views."
I'm still with the vast majority of scientists.
Well, if data is being distorted and opponents silenced, I would think it natural that a majority of scientists believe that global warming is caused by mankind…
The fact remains that the "opponents" who are being "silenced" are minimal. Why is the Republican Party making this a central plank in their agenda? Your party continues to appear as virulently anti-science. Yes, there's room for debate, but when 95% of climatologists say there is anthropogenic climate change, why isn't that enough to warrant action?
What is going to bring you guys around to protecting the planet for future generations? I've read columns that you all have written about liberals putting the burden of our debt on our grandchildren. If you continue to champion climate change denial, nothing gets done, and even the most minimal of predicted catastrophes ensue, I hope you have a fun time explaining to your grandchildren what side of history you were on.
What will bring me around at least is when the costs associated with supposedly protecting the planet for the future do not threaten the lives of the current generations and keep poor people poor. Cap-and-trade, the Kyoto Protocol, and all that nonsense would destroy the economic base of the US and keep third-world countries in poverty. And I won't stand for that.
Anthony,
The concern for protecting the livelihood of working people and the poor in developing nations is legitimate, but I can't help but feel like climate change skeptics take that political, non-scientific statement as a scientific principle around which they try to build up "evidence" used to question the reality of climate change, and therefore to undermine the entire discourse around action related to the issue. These skeptics are saying: "I'm politically opposed to cap-and-trade; now here is evidence that the problem necessitating cap-and-trade might not even be real." But the science-policy continuum obviously has to run the other way. In other words, skepticism of global warming needs to be purely scientific. With conservatives, the skepticism is too politically tainted to be seen as credible by most scientists. Hence, the kind of disgust displayed by the scientists in the leaked emails. I will always be concerned with and opposed to withholding scientific research, as they did, but I can sympathize with the frustration felt by the climatologists out of East Anglia.
And speaking of withholding scientific research, Johnny suggests a very good point: the last administration had an abominable track record on suppressing scientific research and EPA reports, not just on global warming but on other environmental concerns as well. A few nasty (and out-of-context) emails from otherwise totally credible scientists is nothing like the Bush administration's political tampering with EPA opinion (I'm thinking specifically of the suppression of the 2007 endangerment report). You say the left isn't concerned with the Anglia emails, and that might be unfortunately true. But be honest, how concerned were you with Bush's EPA machinations four years ago?