'Climategate' e-mails heat up debate but don't prove that Earth isn't warming

[steven johnson]

Climate change deniers suggest that the leaked e-mails from climate scientists negate huge amounts of data on climate change. Get real!

Big oil and coal would like you to believe this tempest in a teapot has anything to do with climate science. It is spin posturing -- something the GOP, Fox News and Big Oil have been doing for years.

I think we may miss the tipping point in climate change because of stupidity. But it won't be because I believe the GOP-petrochemical-industrial complex has any credibility.

Skeptics poring over the released e-mails are looking for evidence that scientists contributing to the Climatic Research Unit over the past two decades have somehow conspired to twist data so it shows only one thing — global warming is happening.

But in reality, many of the e-mails include attempts by scientists to challenge others’ work and to more rigorously examine the data. Plus, reputable groups outside the Climatic Research Unit have been involved in similar research for years. They include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Japan Meteorological Agency.

But in reality, many of the e-mails include attempts by scientists to challenge others’ work and to more rigorously examine the data. Plus, reputable groups outside the Climatic Research Unit have been involved in similar research for years. They include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Japan Meteorological Agency.

But the report also said carbon dioxide levels were rising at an “unprecedented” rate and the continennt (Antartica) is predicted to warm by slightly more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.


'Climategate' e-mails heat up debate but don't prove that Earth isn't warming

[paulsby]

1. i think there are two things

1) it does not prove that the earth is not warming
2) it is a major scandal, in that it's examples of how what is believed to be "consensus" is actually to some extent, manipulation and destruction of data, and rejection of those who dare question the status quo. if these emails were from corporate executives colluding on something, people would be up in arms. this is bad stuff. as for GW, and specifically anthropogenic global warming, i believe in it, but i am not close minded and i will always keep my eyes open. lots of "settled science" in the past got unsettled.

[Viking12]

2. Which of the out-of-context e-mails, specifically, led you to believe #2?

There is no such evidence.

[Nederland]

4. The HARRY_READ_ME comments are rather disturbing for one

http://www.di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

[Viking12]

5. Certainly doesn't show any collusion, destruction of data, or manipulation

Admittedly, it does show that patching together code over the course of years creates a tangled mess but that is certainly not evidence of any misconduct.

Edit: Spell

[joshcryer]

6. Why?

Ever write a software program before?

[patrice]

3. Americans think they are thinking when they echo oversimplified "It's either this or that"

statements.

Scientists, honest ones, do not give you oversimplified bullshit.

[paulsby]

7. and if one thing is clear

it's that these scientists aren't very honest.

scientists are human. they should be questioned, just like anybody else.

[Viking12]

8. I'll ask again since you're obviously evading requests for you to support your claims...

What proof do you have?