Climate-gate and Sarah Palin?
You know that the times are getting a little weird when Sarah Palin starts talking about historical reconstructions using proxy data of average global surface temperature (see her recent opinion piece in Washington Post).
I really should keep this blog focused on items that are more core to the mission of the GHG Management Institute, but I am compelled to comment briefly on the issue of the stolen emails from the research center at East Anglia University. I am compelled because they are being used as a political weapon to discredit well-substantiated understanding of atmospheric science.
The U.S. EPA has finalized its endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act, which now clears the way for regulations of GHG emissions in the United States for vehicles and ultimately other sources. Immediately the EPA was sued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in part based on what they see as a smoking gun within these stolen emails that they claim are evidence of climate change being a big hoax.
There are now multiple investigations in the works to determine if any improper actions were taken by the scientists whose emails were stolen. Although, I cannot say with certainty, my bet is that the only improper action that will be uncovered is the obvious one. That by those who illegally stole personal emails from respected scientists. Already, one of the scientists involved in the so-called “climate-gate” has received death threats and another climate scientist in Canada has had is office broken into. This state of affairs is the sign of an anti-climate change policy movement that is so lacking in credibility that anything goes.
The truth is that there is almost no credible science behind the other side, which is why they have to fall back on twisting words in private emails out of context to try and manufacture a conspiracy.
Just imagine trying to get thousands of scientists, researchers and academics from around the world to maintain and coordinate a decades long conspiracy for manipulating research results. Yeah, right! Scientists could pull that off. Science does not always get everything correct the first time, but it is not because of some conspiracy (see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn).
I am actually happy that CEI filed this lawsuit because now a judge can look at all the evidence behind climate change and pass judgment. I am pretty confident about the conclusion. And just like the judge that looked at intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinian evolution (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), another judge can expose the climate deniers as the pseudo science that they are.
If you want to look more deeply into the stolen emails, see a really useful investigation by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.