Quick Fact: WSJ's Strassel calls stolen emails a "gold mine" for climate change skeptics
In a Wall Street Journal column about the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) endangerment finding on greenhouse gas emissions, Kim Strassel wrote that "[i]ndustry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don't underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming."
From Strassel's December 11 column:
All the more so, in Congress's view, because the EPA "command and control" threat may yet prove hollow. Now that the endangerment finding has become reality, the litigation is also about to become real. Green groups pioneered the art of environmental lawsuits. It turns out the business community took careful notes.
Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don't underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.
FACT: Scientists say nothing in the reportedly stolen emails undermines climate change science
1,700 scientists sign statement reaffirming position that warming is "unequivocal." Following the release of the reportedly stolen emails, more than 1,700 scientists from the United Kingdom signed a statement responding "to the ongoing questioning of core climate science and methods." It said: "We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method." It continued:
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'.
Nature: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real." A December 2 editorial in the science journal Nature stated: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real -- or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails." Also from the editorial:
The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' -- slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.
AMS: Impact on climate change science of emails "very limited." Following the release of the reportedly stolen emails, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) reaffirmed its Statement on Climate Change, stating that it "is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature." AMS further stated: "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true -- which is not yet clearly the case -- the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."
AAAS reaffirms position on climate change. In a December 4 statement, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position, "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence" that "global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society." AAAS chief executive officer Alan I. Leshner stated, "The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent."
Prominent scientists send letter to Congress "to set the record straight." In a December 4 letter to Congress, 29 prominent scientists, including 11 members of the National Academy of Scientists, stated, "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming." Noting the "multiple independent lines of evidence" supporting the case for manmade climate change, the scientists stated, "Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust."
UCS: "The e-mails provide no information that would affect the scientific understanding of climate change." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has stated that "[t]he e-mails provide no information that would affect the scientific understanding of climate change, as many contrarians are falsely claiming. For years, thousands of scientists working at climate research centers around the world have carefully and rigorously reached a consensus on the extent of climate change, the urgency of the problem, and the role human activity plays in causing it." UCS further stated: "The findings of the USGCRP, IPCC and other scientific bodies are based on the work of thousands of scientists from hundreds of research institutions. The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) is just one among many such research institutions. Even without data from CRU, there is still an overwhelming body of evidence that human activity triggering dangerous levels of global warming."

















Beck's got some gold to sell. Go find your goldmine there.
The analogy with Piltdown Man falls apart in that it was a real fraud and the emails and program code notes don't actually show any real fraud.
A more direct analogy might be to an image of Jesus on a tortilla or a grilled cheese sandwich. If you really want to see fraud or corruption in those emails, you're going to see it in spite of any explanations or facts.
I could go on and on with the analogy, it comes to mind so often. I've kind of wondered, if we could map out the denialists and the creationists how much would they overlap? My bet is that, while most of the denialists might not also be creationists, almost all of the creationists would be denialists. They're cut from the same cloth.
I was at the airport and noticed some young men representing Greenpeace harassing travelers in an attempt to support their GW cause. I remember being harassed at airports by Hare Krishnas in the 1970's.
I was struck by the simularities. They both are cults using young men to proselytize to wary travelers. The problem I have is that the Greenies didn't give out flowers. They also didn't have the commitment to shave their heads and to wear robes.
Woops, I deleted the original source data sets because my hard drive was full and I needed the room for more grant applications. -- Now that's the real gold mine.
Raw data can only be interpreted by us "Climate Change Researchers". Take our word for it. 99% of our scientists in climate research centers have 100% consensus. Silly 1% are denialist clown scientists with no grant money.
-- The weather is changing, stop solar cycles NOW. The capitalists are the cause. I stand behind our findings.
-Dr. Phil Jones -- PHD, LSD, THC, MDA
It would be better to show how the stolen emails are being distorted, or how they show in fact the opposite of what is being suggested.
Personally, I believe the truth about humans being the cause of global climate change is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes being debated. I think we are contributors, because we are part of the overall climate system, but we are not the cause. To claim we are the cause is arrogance, elevating the importance of the species and ignoring the importance of every other thing in the world. Likewise, to claim we are not contributors in any way is just as arrogant, suggesting we are somehow not having any impact on the rest of the global system we are part of.