The world is now several weeks into the scandal of Climategate and the Warmists are in denial.† As a whole their response to a currently unknown hacker breaching the security of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and leaking over a thousand emails and other documents has been to not respond. The Warmists have done their best to completely ignore this scandal and continue to maintain that “the debate is over.”
The cultists of Al Goreís pseudo-religion, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), desperately want this scandal to be dismissed and forgotten.
Sadly for them, the leaked material comprised more than 1000 e-mails, 2000 documents, as well as the commented FORTRAN source code for modeling and data analysis, pertaining to Global Warming or Climate Change research from 1996 to 2009. †Much of it was very detrimental to both their credibility and their faith.
For the purposes of disseminating raw data for independent review I have provided the†zipped contents (63.4Mb) of the compromised CRU server here.† Form your own opinion!
Possibly worse for them, those emails included discussions of how best to combat the arguments of climate change skeptics, defamatory comments about those skeptics, various queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers, apparently successful attempts to keep scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature, and talk of destroying various files in order to prevent raw, unmodified data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.
President Obama’s “Climate Czar,” the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Carol Browner, was especially fervent in her denial of the issues uncovered by Climategate. Irrespective of whatever evidence of shoddy work and outright† malfeasance has come to light, she’s holding firm to the Warmists’ dogma and dismissing any complaints as irrelevant and from some “fringe” of society.
She’s either a True Believer in the Cult of Global Warming, or she just wants to keep her job, which is predicated on the Warmists’ doctrine, and remain somehow relevant.
There has been for a very long time a very small group of people who continue to say this isnít a real problem, that we donít need to do anything. On the other hand, we have 2,500 of the wordís foremost scientists who are in absolute agreement that this is a real problem and that we need to do something and we need to do something as soon as possible.
What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there or the 2,500 scientists? Iím sticking with the 2,500 scientists.I mean, these people have been studying this issue for a very, very long time, and agree that the problem is real.
— Carol Browner
November 25, 2009, Press Gaggle
A very small group of people who continue to say this isnít a real problem? A couple of naysayers? Carol Browner obviously has as little grasp of math as she apparently does of any other hard sciences. The Pew Research Center’s most recent survey concerning Global Warming showed that only 57% of Americans believed that there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming at all and only 36% believed that such warming was anthropogenic in origin.
Since there are approximately 305 million people in the US, that means that around 131 million of them don’t believe that there is solid evidence to support the theory of Global Warming and around 195 million of them, while believing that there is evidence to support the theory of Global Warming, don’t think that the evidence solidly supports the claim that it is primarily a human caused situation.
Nobody in anything remotely close to their right mind would honestly try to describe between 100 – 200 million people as “a very small group” or “a couple of naysayers.” Of course this isn’t about honesty; it’s about denying that her raison d’Ítre – and her raison d’Ítre employť – isn’t being accepted as much as she needs it to be and that it just got exposed, once again, as being based on poor data, substandard modeling, slipshod analysis, and an agenda-driven “group think” that actively silenced contrary opinions and theories.
There’s a certain schadenfreude to be derived from watching the Warmists, who disparagingly label any dissenters or skeptics as “Deniers,” running around in denial themselves. Indeed, the delectatio morosa that one can derive from the Warmists’ childish reaction to the discomfiture that Climategate has caused them is positively sinful.
They can deny the problem all that they want to. They can dismiss the scandal and the flaws and malfeasance it uncovered and forced into the public eye all that they want to. Doing so doesn’t change the fact that there is still debate about Global Warming, both its very existence and its possible causes, and that Climategate dramatically hurt their position.