So called 'ClimateGate'

[Yargling]

I'm sure pretty much everyone has heard about this so called 'ClimateGate'. I've noticed on a few of the forums I go to, they is a group of people who say 'Climate Change is not man-made/man-aided', and have been going on and on about these hacked emails. Now, personally, how the story reads to me is "group scientists tried to present their data as best as they could to a bunch of untechnical bosses"; i.e. their bosses don't understand the science too well, and wouldn't understand the explainations of why X, Y, and Z looks the way it does. Hence, when its read by outside people, these claims of it all being a huge lie start.

However, I don't want to assume I'm correct, but lack the understanding of the evidence for global warming and the time to go through all the emails to see what's what. Basically, is there any truth to these anti global warming comments?

[deflective]

if you're looking for pro-climate change political spin on the emails there's a scientific american article that covers the main points.

as always, scientific debate is pretty much settled on the issue, it's the political battle that makes it look like there's controversy, but that still doesn't excuse the methods used by the scientists here.  i don't make my living off scientific research so i can afford to take an idealized view of the scientific process but still, data is data.  as a scientist it isn't your place to play the numbers.

even if there's 99% certainty for a theory we need to allow for thea chance that it's wrong and put the data out there so people rabid to disprove it have their chance.

[Heradel]

A little late here, but it's important to note that there were simultaneous attempts at other climate research centers, East Anglia's was just the one with the weakest security. I had to cover this a bit for work, and really this isn't that big of a scandal. Even if it entirely discredited CRU's temperatures, you would still have several other, independently arrived at, temperatures time-lines to look at — including NASA's and NOAA's.

Honestly, if anyone thought that after years of attacks just like this that the community of climate scientists wasn't going to be a bit paranoid and distrustful, I have some seaside property in Arizona to sell you. It'll just take a few years for the sea to get there.

[Alasdair5000]

Stop confusing everyone with facts!:)

[Yargling]

A little late here, but it's important to note that there were simultaneous attempts at other climate research centers, East Anglia's was just the one with the weakest security. I had to cover this a bit for work, and really this isn't that big of a scandal. Even if it entirely discredited CRU's temperatures, you would still have several other, independently arrived at, temperatures time-lines to look at — including NASA's and NOAA's.

Honestly, if anyone thought that after years of attacks just like this that the community of climate scientists wasn't going to be a bit paranoid and distrustful, I have some seaside property in Arizona to sell you. It'll just take a few years for the sea to get there.

Well, good. I figured this was the case, but I didn't want to blindly accept my own prejudices against such groups (i.e. conspiracy theorists), so I'm glad to see I wasn't wrong.

[Heradel]

A little late here, but it's important to note that there were simultaneous attempts at other climate research centers, East Anglia's was just the one with the weakest security. I had to cover this a bit for work, and really this isn't that big of a scandal. Even if it entirely discredited CRU's temperatures, you would still have several other, independently arrived at, temperatures time-lines to look at — including NASA's and NOAA's.

Honestly, if anyone thought that after years of attacks just like this that the community of climate scientists wasn't going to be a bit paranoid and distrustful, I have some seaside property in Arizona to sell you. It'll just take a few years for the sea to get there.

Well, good. I figured this was the case, but I didn't want to blindly accept my own prejudices against such groups (i.e. conspiracy theorists), so I'm glad to see I wasn't wrong.

The problem with climate science is that it has gotten so politicized because its findings require a rapid shift away from cheap and ingrained energy sources to newer, at least right now more expensive (most of the renewables), and harder to build ones(Nuclear, Hydro). So when there are scientists who are skeptical in the climate arena, their work is seized on to further ideology rather than science, and the long boring of hard wood that is science is made far more difficult. There are wiggly bits around the edges that aren't really settled, but the fact that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses(GHG) cause global warming is.

Some of the wiggly bits include the models that project how quickly the Earth will warm over the next century due to GHGs, and what will be hit hardest. They all agree there will be warming, but they usually disagree in the fine detail. Best equivalent would probably be the projected tracks NOAA generates for hurricanes. The lines are relatively close in the near term and then fan out, thus giving a cone where NOAA expects the hurricane to go. There are a couple models that show slower warming but there are no models that do not show eventually catastrophic warming, and right now some early science is pointing to GHG concentrations rising faster than we thought when the IPCC report came out.