Climategate Exposed!

In the aftermath of "climategate" this blog examined the importance of global climate change to the sustainability effort. Now, with the benefit of time and careful examination, it is appropriate to talk about the hacked East Anglia e-mails and their repercussions. Whereas before the story of these e-mails was that they existed, we can now be a little more careful about what exactly they say and what that means for climate science.

To review: in late November e-mails that had been hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were released to the general public. The e-mails caused quite a stir in America (indeed around the world) because they appeared to show a deliberate effort on the part of leading climate researchers to....well,....do something. Actually, a clear headed reflection on the level to which it was possible to know anything in the immediate aftermath shows the only thing we really knew right away with any certainty was these were not the e-mails in which the scientists had planned the office Christmas party. The rest of the muddled picture involved threats against fellow scientists, talk of mysterious "tricks", and even a rousing discussion of the true meaning of peer review.

What mattered most about these e-mails was not actually what the e-mails said, but what people thought they said. So the war over saying what the e-mails said began. Conservative politicians and personalities lined up on the side that saw these e-mails as the smoking gun in a long planned conspiracy to rob from the rich of the world and redistribute their wealth to hopeless third world countries who would immediately become organized enough to rub it in America's face. Liberal personalities vigorously denied the e-mails said anything at all. And even if they did say something, it was obviously being said way out of context. Which is a time honored political tactic that liberals are never guilty of.

But because some people still actually care about the facts of a news story. And because those people happen to work for the otherwise incredibly boring Associated Press, we are finally getting a picture of what was really in those pilfered e-mails. An independent review of the e-mails by five AP reporters produced the following results:

-CRU scientists have bad manners while discussing other scientists

-CRU scientists should have remembered that they are scientists and not politicians or used car salesmen

-CRU scientists should spend more time reading, "What NOT To Do On Your Work Computer" articles on Yahoo!

On a serious note, the AP review of the e-mails showed very many cases of poor taste and nearly zero fabrications of significance to the overall science of climate change. Climategate has allowed everyone an insight into the ultra competitive world of cutting edge science and has highlighted the need for greater transparency in the pursuit of sound scientific evidence. Indeed, particular climate scientists come out looking like jerks. What it unequivocally has not done is crack the basic foundation of global climate change science.

Unfortunately, as noted earlier, it matters very little what these e-mails actually said. We had two weeks to battle this out on the news channels and the talk radio shows. For two weeks, talking heads "debated" what exactly was in these e-mails. All of this happened before anyone had actually taken the time to read them. Now that the AP report has been released, it is unfortunately too late to be bothered with for most people.

It would be nice to see this new review of the e-mails discussed on as large a scale as the initial news story. It would do the scientific community good and also serve as a caution to many who make their profession out of being a pundit. No one ends up looking good here. Except the AP. And that's saying something, because those guys are really boring.