By now most of you have heard about the hundreds of e-mails sent by climate scientists that were illegally hacked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, England. As it pans out there were particular e-mails that questioned or led to questions regarding global warming. The debate is raging around the world on whether or not those e-mails were taken out of context or possibly edited, as well. This is what has come to be known as “Climategate” affair … and one is left wondering about its timing a few weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
Fast Tube by Casper
There is obvious doubt being cast on these climate change scientists on whether they analysed these data to maybe fit their theories on global warming. The opposition seems to be predominantly ideological and yet is attacking the science. While I am a firm believer on debating issues to decipher the truth, it would be nice to keep ideologists from both sides of the argument in one camp, and scientists, also from both sides of the argument in their own. It would also be fair to subject climate change skeptics to the same level of transparency that these climate scientists are being subjected to.
However, I should point out that it is ludicrous to ever think that an establishment as old as science would not have the same internal politics (some of which may have been visible in the e-mails) that leads to back-stabbing, cliques, nepotism and dishonesty, rife in some sections of business, non-government and government organizations. I guess this has to be taken into consideration in the Climategate affair and perhaps question whether the science establishment has sufficient checks and balances that rise above internal politics and guarantee delivery of “good science” to the general public.
But somehow to use the Climategate to sow seeds of doubt on restructuring programs and commitment to lower emissions is somewhat obstructive. Hopefully the dust will settle early and we can all go back to the issue that really matters, i.e. good stewardship of mother earth, climate change or not. I would want to think that both sides of the climate change debate will agree that we, as the public, are living beyond our means … it is unsustainable and we ought to find a way forward. So the Climategate affair has now become another big detour on the long road to low emissions.
