In his clear style, Tim Lambert at Deltoid lays out the basic facts:
Some more of the emails stolen from the Climate Research Centre in 2009 have been released. This time they are accompanied by a readme with out-of-context quotes that asserts the purpose of the release is information transparency, but that’s an obvious lie, since they’ve sat on them for two years and released them just before Durban conference. The timing suggests that the people behind the theft and release have a financial interest in preventing mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. It is most unlikely that there is anything incriminating in these emails — if there was, it would have been released two years ago.
I remind readers that the last round revealed wrong-doing only by accomplices and friends of the thieves, and revealed no wrong-doing on the part of climate scientists.
Especially, the last round revealed no data to show warming is not happening, nor any data to show anything but righteous and noble concern to mitigate or stop the human contribution to the pollution that causes unnatural global warming. This round of releases will do the same, I predict.
Joe Romm illustrated his post on the issue (which you will want to read) with this cartoon from Drew Sheneman of the Newark Star-Ledger:
(Does anyone have the date on that cartoon? Is it, like this one from Tom Toles, so old it indicates denialists do nothing new under the sun?)
In the two years since the last release of stolen e-mails, a few hundred studies on global warming have been published confirming the fact that warming occurs, and confirming the links to human activity as a cause of unnatural warming. Even Anthony Watts’s work was published, but when analyzed, it also showed global warming and not miscalculations of data or misreadings of data (Watts denies the results from his data).
So, in two years, climate change denialists have been unable to find any significant chunk of data to support any of their claims, while the planet continues to warm at an increasingly alarming rate.
How many times do we allow the miscreant to call “wolf” falsely? Why would we believe him on any other issue?
- Here’s one site where you can read and search the stolen e-mails; in classic denialist fog-the-issue fashion, the site is named “FOIA,” though it has absolutely nothing to do with a legitimate use of any Freedom of Information Act. FOIA is not stealing stuff.
- New York Times story on the event