I didn’t. Climategate is the nickname for the security breach at the University of East Anglia that saw some 3000 internal files related to climatology, including around 1000 personal emails exchanged by faculty members conducting climate research. According to climate skeptics, some of the emails contained evidence (mostly text exchanges) that leading researchers who supported anthropogenic climate change intentionally manipulated data to further their political agenda. Scary stuff… too bad it probably ain’t true. An academic review board at Pennsylvania State University recently cleared Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the central figures embroiled in the controversy, of any scientific wrongdoing; they are now reviewing whether his conduct has negatively impact the public perception of the veracity of climate change data (doesn’t the fact your launching such an investigation answer that question?).
Indeed, many of the “smoking gun” comments found in the leaked emails can be explained when they are placed in a proper conversational context, as opposed to being excised and subjected to detailed, perhaps unrealistic scrutiny as an stand alone sentence (for example, Kevin Trenberth’s statement about the unfortunate state of climatological data collection).
However, it should be said that some of what’s come to light just looks bad no matter how you couch it (for example,Phil Jones’ comment about deleting data before it could be released through the freedom of information act). Thankfully, that’s all these statements really do: stand out like a sore thumb and embarrass those who wrote them. There is presently no evidence to suggest that anyone ever actually acted on their impulse to withhold data. Anyway, that’s it for my very cursory summary of Climategate; while I always try to keep an open mind and avoid becoming dogmatic, even about something like climate change, I can’t help but feel some of my conspiracy theorist brethren are reaching on this one. We all have ideological axes to grind and are bound to let our political views tinge our conversation from time to time; that should come as no surprise. What is surprising is that we still assume scientific researchers somehow transcend this fact.
