Stolen climate e-mails called a "smear campaign"

Regardless of which side you are on, can we all agree that there has been a concerted effort to "end the debate" and move on to the implementation of solutions? Rather than trying to dismiss an unintentional consequences of the emails, why not deal with what those emails say?

Are we seriously doubting global warming? The planet is going to be okay....it's just that we won't.

JanforGore, I applaud your efforts! The deniers will never change until something drastic happens, i for one believe the great conveyer belt shutting down will only change these kind of people. Unfortunately Europe will be in an ice-age in year when it happens, recent evidence shows when the last mini ice-age took place it only took a year for it to envelope that continent. I have always said it is better to error on safety that to ignore the warning signs. But these Billy-Bobs won't budge until their necks are snow deep.

lol i dont think anyone is going to Convert someone with the name janforgore

Because I can think for myself. I see the effects of climate change around the world and the pace they are happening at, which is the key. If you think exposing some cherrypicked emails from a couple of scientists compares even infintesimally to the years and volumes of studies done on this from the 1950s and even before by peer reviewed scientists, you are truly joking. You may as well give up if your only objective in coming in here is to "covert me." This is not about beliefs or appeasing some political grudge, this is about reality.

meanwhile al gore is leaving his mansion to catch a flight on a private plane and head for his 100ft boat where he cant count his millions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-...

Jan if you don't want to listen to Ron, why don't you listen to fellow AWG cultist George Monbiot?

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Now you know why Current lost 80 jobs, green stocks are down.

LOL. Some unsubstantiated comment written by soneone named only "Ron" is supposed to do what? That could have been written by you. Who would know? How stupid do you think people are?

Oh my, more photoshopped photos to cherrypick. You really are obsessed aren't you?

As a long time AGW supporter I must say I found the emails very disturbing.

I spent hours reading them myself. I don't know if they qualify as “smoking gun” that the AGW science is bust, but I just cannot ignore it.

I feel ashamed for the behavior of our leading scientists. Even more than feeling ashamed – I feel betrayed.

For years I trusted that science will prevail over the unsubstantiated skeptic view. These emails reveal a very disturbing picture of ideology overriding science. Science being bent out of shape to
support a hypothesis.

They reveal unbelievable arrogance. These people whom I trusted so much think they are
- above the law (destroying email, refusing FOIA, tax evasion)
- above the data (“hide the decline”, remove the cooling blimp)
- above their peers (get uncomforting journal editors fired, block
skeptic publications)
- above the rest of us (manipulate the message, presentation and media)

I am sick to my stomach. I know there are so many other hard working scientists that have not tainted themselves. But this group – Phil Jones, Ken Briffa, Mike Man, Gavin Schmidt have casted a huge shadow of doubt over the entire field and caused a huge damage to the green
movement.

I talked with many of my friends who, like most of us, continue to believe in AGW, and we think that as long as these guys continue to lead the science and the IPCC assessments they will continue to taint all of the good work done by thousands of other scientists.

We need to acknowledge that wrong was done. We need to replace the tainted leadership and continue the research without the air of doubt.

http://climatechangefraud.com/green-affected/5658-warmergate-fallout-i-am-sick-t...

The leading scientists at the UN IPCC are fraudsters, plain and simple. The e-mails are what they are and no amount of kicking and screaming is going to change that.

This article speaks of "victims" at the UN IPCC saying that skeptics are trying to confuse the public on climate change, but isn't that what the scientists involved in this scandal were doing, confusing the public?

No thanks. I'm allergic to BS.

yep knew the spin was coming but didnt think it would take so long

cause and effect!

Deal with the effect. The who and How matters only if...

The possible (key word) manipulation of data by two scientists means nothing. Guilt by association is one of the most common logical fallacies. Just because one climate scientist possibly did wrong does not speak to the character of the 10,000s of other scientists who do climate/environmental research.

Also, its quite possible that the emails were taken out of context.

~ The G W whacks have been exposed by their own "doctored" documents, so out comes the usual denials and accusations of a smear campaign.
~ How long will it be before it is determined that it is a "vast right wing conspiracy?"

follow the money. aint that right al.

Even though the consensus is that global warming is occurring and the people in the majority also believe it to be, Corporations and the powerful boards that sit in command don't want things to change. It will eat into their profits and they will just not stand for that!

If you lack problem solving skills , a common tactic is to go directly to DENIAL and try to make it stick . Historically , this is not a survival trait . These people should be banned from leadership positions . They will doom us all . Problem is they serve powerful corporate interests . They have money , and ruthless lust for more of it . All we have is sanity and common sense . The sooner we take charge , the better for everyone . Even the loonies in denial .

Actually, that would be you. I hope you seek help soon.

E-mail gate!

Where is the patriot act when you need it!

How can a conspiracy to blame man be the explanation for burning Terra some more?!?

Now watch the usuals post the same crud as in every thread, but don't hold your breath waiting to see anything based on the science. That is simply something they don't have so they have to target people to plant seeds of doubt. It's all they have at this point. And these are the same people screaming about the government being able to read their mail and how it violates their right to privacy. Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Excerpt

Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.

The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.

The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.

Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as "Climate Gate."

The scandal began on November 20, when an unknown hacker stole at least 169 megabytes of emails from computers at the prominent Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and put them online for the world to see.

CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human-caused global warming. The leaked emails contain private correspondence on climate science dating back to 1996.

Skeptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence of manipulated data from lead authors of the UN's highly influential IPCC reports.

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma, pictured here), a climate skeptic, said he would launch an inquiry into UN climate change research in response.

In an interview with the Washington Times radio show, Inhofe explained the investigation would look into "the way cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement:

"There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking," he said. Continued...