Most people who follow the climate debate — and many who do not — will have heard about the so-called Climategate. In a nutshell, hackers stole 13 years of emails from leading climate scientists at Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the UK’s University of East Anglia and published them on the web for all to see.

climate2Bchang

Embarrassing, to say the least! And so, we see researchers talking trash, musing about tricks to coax trends out of data, puzzling over downward blips in the temperature record, and pondering ways to discredit their critics.

Humans are responsible

We have to face the truth, we as humans are responsible for all the climate change that is happening in the world and if we did any actions in time to prevent further damage, we might have had a chance to save the situation. However, nowadays, the climate change is such a huge problem that we need a miracle just to fix it. Turning to a greener technology that is eco-friendlier, we can make a huge step.

But the skeptics are having a field day, pulling quotes here and there that prove all manner of malfeasance, including proof that climate scientists killed John F. Kennedy, and that they were behind the infamous decision to change the Coca-Cola recipe.

All of the information that was released with these emails was read by a lot of people all around the world and it was a shocking experience for a lot of them. Who knows, what would have happened if these hackers didn’t share that information. Luckily, for us, we have that information and we can now use it to analyze a lot of things. The key thing with valuable information such as this is to know what to do with it.

Honestly, if you’re looking for a smoking that disproves global warming, you won’t find it. And that’s because there’s so little to be found. What global warming deniers can’t seem to get through their thick skulls is that four major climate research centers exist, including Hadley. If anyone of them had been cooking the books, it would have been apparent.

annual_temperature_anomalies1

But, as the graph above shows, NOAA, NASA, HADCRU, and JMA show a remarkably similar temperature record. To doubt their results, you would have to believe that:

International scientists in three countries — and four institutions — are in collusion

That this collusion was invoked sometime around 1880

That scientists

Have co-opted virtually every climate scientist on the planet and convinced them to play along. Publishing hundreds of false studies — in fact, 1,500 in the last three years alone

That somehow climate scientists at Hadley have managed to get Mother Nature to play along, melting the glaciers, Antarctica, and the Arctic Sea Ice, to name just a few of the thousands of changes wrought over the last 30 yearsSeaIce-Sep

 

I joke, but Climategate does raise one serious matter: a few Hadley researchers discussed ways to avoid complying with Freedom of Information requests. If they acted, then their actions were stupid and illegal.

Let me say that again. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

What could have caused them to act so rashly? Perhaps being subjected to 58 FOI requests over a six-day period, and hundreds over the last few years. In a nutshell, were being hounded by non-scientists who, in most cases, don’t know their ass from their elbow.

But I’m with Dr. Jim Hansen on the issue. Ninety-eight percent of climate data is available for all to see. But we need to bump that up to 100 percent, as they do at NASA, to ensure complete and utter transparency. Here’s Hansen’s take:

No, [the emails] have no effect on the science. The evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming… [The hacked emails] indicate poor judgment in specific cases. First, the data behind any analysis should be made publicly available. Second, rather than trying so hard to prohibit publication of shoddy science, which is impossible, it is better than reviews. Such as by IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences, summarizes the full range of opinions and explains clearly the basis of the scientific assessment. The “contrarians” or “deniers” do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle or at least get a draw. Which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.

As mentioned above, these emails that were provided to the world, showed that some cases indicated poor judgment. They should have made all the data of the analyses to be available for everyone to see and use.

People like Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit and Anthony Watts at Watts Up don’t have to concern themselves with the truth. They play a cynical public relations game in which they smear their betters. And line their own pockets — even as people in the developing world watch helplessly as rising sea levels wash away their homes.

Frankly, I don’t know how they sleep at night.