E-mails raise questions about climate studies

The whole global-warming controversy just got hotter. Newspapers and broadcasts have been full of news about e-mails that hackers uncovered at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. The e-mails published on the Internet reveal some very unprofessional and troubling practices on the part of a number of well-known climatologists who have been at the forefront among those touting man-made global warming.

 According to the e-mails, scientists had warned each other about discussing research results unfavorable to their hypothesis linking human activity and global warming. They also attempted to discredit scientific journals that published articles that ran counter to their viewpoints and shared pointers on how to “hide the decline” of (the earth’s) temperature when the numbers did not support their positions.

This development adds fuel to the global warming controversy. Among other things, it raises questions about the conclusions made by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's(IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007. The scientists in question suggested that certain (unfavorable) e-mails regarding that report be deleted so as to not give critics of the report any substantial ammunition. 

Global warming, especially mankind’s role, has been a tough issue because there has been so much conflicting data and data interpretation. We have had our doubts. There seems to be some evidence of global warming, but the connection with current human activity seems far less certain.

The timing of the released e-mails is interesting. There has been a push by the Obama Administration and some members of Congress to pass energy legislation here in the U.S. prior to the World Climate Summit in Copenhagen this month. Now it looks as if any energy bill will be delayed until spring, at least. Nevertheless, the recent controversy, which has been referred to as “climategate,” may well change the tone of the Copenhagen gathering. A little extra time to look at climate data and the economic impact of stiffer greenhouse gas regulation in the U.S. and around the world will be time well spent.