You have a whole bunch of emails talking about how they manipulated the data and how they destroyed the source date so their statistics and findings cannot be replicated and we are supposed to say that makes no difference. Ridiculous.
* Editorials
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/editorials/>
* Columnists
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/>
* Contributors
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/contributors/>
* Letters
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/letters/>
* The Public Editor
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html>
* Global Opinion
<http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/global/index.html>
Editorial
That Climate Change E-Mail
* Sign in to Recommend
* Twitter
* Sign In to E-Mail
<http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html>
* Print
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print>
* Share
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>Close
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>
o Linkedin
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>
o Digg
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>
o Facebook
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>
o Mixx
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>
o MySpace
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>
o Yahoo! Buzz
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>
o Permalink
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#>
o
Article Tools Sponsored By
<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/opinion&pos=Frame4A&sn2=f8475720/9aad5d74&sn1=62a30b6/7d8a629e&camp=foxsearch2009_emailtools_1011080c_nyt5&ad=CrazyHeart_120x60_Dec16_c&goto=http://www.foxsearchlight.com/crazyheart>
Published: December 5, 2009
The theft of thousands of private e-mail messages and files from
computer servers at a leading British climate research center has been a
political windfall for skeptics who claim the documents prove that
mainstream scientists have conspired to overstate the case for human
influence on climate change.
Skip to next paragraph
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#secondParagraph>
Related
Times Topics: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/intergovernmental_panel_on_climate_change/index.html>
They are using the e-mail to blast the Obama administration's climate
policies. And they clearly hope that the e-mail will undermine
negotiations for a new climate change treaty that begin in Copenhagen
this week.
No one should be misled by all the noise. The e-mail messages represent
years' worth of exchanges among prominent American and British
climatologists. Some are mean-spirited, others intemperate. But they
don't change the underlying scientific facts about climate change.
One describes climate skeptics as "idiots," another describes papers
written by climate contrarians as "garbage" and "fraud." Still another
suggests that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, whose 2007 report concluded that humans were the dominant force
behind global warming, should pay no attention to contrarian opinions.
Another quotes an exasperated Phil Jones --- director of the climate
center at the University of East Anglia, from which the e-mail was
stolen --- as expressing the hope that climate change would occur
"regardless of the consequences" so "the science could be proved right."
However, most of the e-mail messages --- judging by those that have seen
the light of day --- appear to deal with the painstaking and difficult
task of reconstructing historical temperatures, and the problems
scientists encounter along the way. Despite what the skeptics say, they
demonstrate just how rigorously scientists have worked to figure out
whether global warming is real and the true role that human activities
play.
The controversy isn't over. James Inhofe, the Senate's leading skeptic,
has asked for an inquiry into what some are calling "Climategate." And
on Friday, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations'
intergovernmental panel, announced that he would conduct his own
investigation.
It is important that scientists behave professionally and openly. It is
also important not to let one set of purloined e-mail messages undermine
the science and the clear case for action, in Washington and in Copenhagen.
Sign in to Recommend Next Article in Opinion (10 of 30) ยป
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06pubed.html> A version of
this article appeared in print on December 6, 2009, on page WK9 of the
New York edition.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.<<attachment: article-sponsor.gif>>
<<attachment: ch_quote_120x60anim_15k_2.gif>>
