New Library Topic: Climategate

When, on November 19, 2009, e-mails from Climatic Research Unit (CRU) researchers at the University of East Anglia were made public by the efforts of a few hackers, the world had to confront the possibility that the science behind the theory of global warming is not so scientific after all.

The CRU emails revealed that some of the much-touted data on climate change, and specifically man-made global warming, had been the result of inappropriate manipulation and deception. Worse yet, it also appeared that credible scientists who opposed the climate change paradigm were being prevented from publishing their ideas in major academic journals. The scandal caused by the emails was thereafter dubbed “Climategate.”

Climategate demonstrates that much of the climate change establishment wants to obscure the fact that there is a legitimate scientific controversy to be had over the data providing the basis for pro-climate change arguments. What few in the establishment admit is that their arguments depend in large part on reconstructions of the Earth’s climate during times for which we have no recorded measurements or observations. Reconstructing the Earth’s climate is no simple endeavor. It involves interpretations of proxy data—such as variations in lake sediments, boreholes, ice cores, and tree rings—by complex statistical and computer models, which in turn depend on assumptions that reasonably can be questioned.

Although the CRU emails do not disprove global warming, still, as the American Enterprise Institute’s Steven Hayward points out, “[w]hat they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand.”

In the case of global warming though, much more is at stake than the integrity of the scientific process. All around the world, governments are gearing up to put regulations in place on greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to stem the perceived impending, catastrophic global warming. Not only do such regulations promise to place a huge tax burden on individuals and businesses thereby harming much needed economic growth, they also siphon off resources from more pressing and immediate matters such as disease, hunger, and poverty. At the very least, Climategate shows us that the case for incurring such costs is not at all solid.

Scientists choosing to grind ideological axes rather than sticking to facts, reason, evidence and logic is not only bad for science—it’s bad for all of us.

You can learn more about Climategate by going here. Additionally, to learn more broadly about the politicization of global warming, click here. For other great topics, visit our library. Special thanks to intern Annie Holmquist for creating this topic! For more information about becoming an intern with ITO, check here.