Washington Post associate editor Eugene Robinson Friday called the growing ClimateGate scandal a "major embarrassment for the scientists involved" that undermines the "consensus" concerning man's role in global warming.
Even more concerning to Robinson was that these scientists "seem to be trying to squelch dissent" from anyone that disagrees with them.
"The fact is that climate science is fiendishly hard because of the enormous number of variables that interact in ways no one fully understands," he wrote. "Scientists should welcome contrarian views from respected colleagues, not try to squelch them. They should admit what they don't know."
As you can see, Robinson was by no means trying to downplay the significance of this scandal:
That said, the e-mail episode is more than a major embarrassment for the scientists involved. Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real -- a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make to begin seriously limiting carbon emissions. But consensus on the nature and scope of the problem will dissipate, and fast, if experts try to obscure the fact that there's much about the climate they still don't know.
After explaining some of ClimateGate's details -- and doing a surprisingly good job of it! -- Robinson editorialized:
From my reading, the most damning e-mails are those in which scientists seem to be trying to squelch dissent from climate-change orthodoxy -- threatening to withhold papers from journals if they publish the work of naysayers, vowing to keep skeptical research out of the official U.N.-sponsored report on climate change.
In his statement, Jones noted that the e-mail hack occurred just days before the climate summit in Copenhagen. "This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change," he said. There's that understatement again.
The fact is that climate science is fiendishly hard because of the enormous number of variables that interact in ways no one fully understands. Scientists should welcome contrarian views from respected colleagues, not try to squelch them. They should admit what they don't know.
To be sure, this scandal hasn't changed Robinson's mind:
It would be great if this were all a big misunderstanding. But we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we know the planet is hotter than it was a century ago. The skeptics might have convinced one another, but so far they haven't gotten through to the vanishing polar ice.
However, the rare abundance of skepticism in his piece means that even a strong "consensus" believer like himself has been rocked by this scandal, so much so that he's even willing to write about it.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
There are some subjects that
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:09 ET by d1carterThere are some subjects that Mr. Robinson should refrain from addressing. Science and social engineering are two different things. But I am sure the true believers appreciated the blather from one of the faithful.
X
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:10 ET by serfer62Consenses?
Where does that come in in science?
I think we should vote on gravity, its outdated...
Noel, You are being far
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:13 ET by NL207Noel,
You are being far too generous with Robinson.
If he thinks the emails are the most damaging portion of these disclosures, then he knows absolutely nothing about science and ought to shut his pie hole.
The code and data content in the disclosure are positively damning. They reveal to what extent this climate data has been falsified, fudged and distorted to produce a pre-determined result. This activity is not science. It is fraud. More importantly from the perespective of judging WaPo's Robinson, these practices are unethical, violating the rules of academia and scientific enquiry. Robinson does not need any special academic credentials or scientific training to recognize this. Climatologists have no special claim to intellectual honesty. It is the same in that discipline as anywhere else. Robinson is being blinded by his own prejudice. He does not see these climate crooks for what they are.
It's hard to say what's the most damaging . . .
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 16:30 ET by WingletDriverThe code is obviously cooked. The emails show how they just made up data to fit their conclusion, destroyed data that disproved their theories, sought to destroy the peer review process, gloated over the death of a rival, refused to comply with freedom of information laws, illegally deleted emails, and so on. In short, this exposes these guys as more than just a bunch of frauds. When caught, they just kept compounding the problem. Their latest defense is to refer us back to the peer reviewed literature. Are they joking or do they think we're that stupid?
I'd like the media to compare the way the CRU are handling this to how the Church handled Galileo. The Church has always been painted as the bad guy and against science. The CRU is the magisterium of the new religion of AGW and are this is a peek at their inquisition.
great article on the hockey stick says it all
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 21:11 ET by CiampinoThis was fascinating reading:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-pa...
Does anyone know who the
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:18 ET by NonanonDoes anyone know who the hacker is? Was the hacker aware these emails were out there and was looking for them or did they just stumble upon them? Is it possible this is some sort of distraction from something bigger?
→ Don't know
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:20 ET by Cool ArrowI've heard it was a Russian hack job.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
The info first appeared on a Russian website.
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 19:34 ET by Army BratWho put it there is anyone's guess at this point.
islam is a lie and Truth is killing it.
Not clear who the "hacker"
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:47 ET by NL207Not clear who the "hacker" was. I am not even certain it was hacked. This disclosure might have been an unauthorized publication by a disgruntled insider.
That being said, if it was a hack job, it does have all the hallmarks of an Eastern Bloc job.
This is all speculation. For my part, I will wait until we know something more factual before forming any opinion about the source.
Maybe the CIA
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 16:39 ET by WingletDriverRussia doesn't make much sense on the surface because they have a lot to gain by watching the West slit their wrists with the Copenhagen treaty.
The CIA, though, has been targeted by the left for a while now. The KSM trial in NY is just a way of putting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the CIA on trial. Not to mention Nancy Pelosi and her ilk constantly referring to them as if they are criminals. The timing is great. It will have a major impact on Copenhagen. BHO will look pretty stupid if he tries to commit the US to any treaty (which will then be rejected by a Democrat Congress) based on the faulty science exposed in the emails and code. It stops the leftist internationals from co-opting US sovereignty.
It's just a guess, but boy wouldn't that be great if it were our boys who did that?
NL.. at this point, I'm also
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 21:39 ET by celatorNL.. at this point, I'm also guessing it was an inside job--someone who could not take the lies anymore and realized the enormous fraud systematically going on.
An insider would not have to hack in the system, just copy and print. While the Russians were the first to launch the story, the BBC had the information for several weeks and wouldn't go with it. I think there is a clue there (but I don't know what it is).
But, as you say, we are all just guessing at the source right now.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
"the BBC had the
Sun, 11/29/2009 - 10:13 ET by NL207"the BBC had the information for several weeks and wouldn't go with it"
Really? That sheds a whole new light on this. It also calls into question the journalistic integrity and objectivity of the BBC.
Do you have a link to share about the BBC role in this scandal?
This is like some love
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 14:00 ET by Chris NormanThis is like some love lorn girl who refuses to believe that her no-good boyfriend doesn't love her, even after he tells her he's been lying about it.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
The new consensus
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:48 ET by CobraManThe Global Warming "consensus" has been replaced with a new consensus, that the "science" is wrought with fraud!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
So he can write about, but
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 13:49 ET by FranksamSo he can write about, but can he admit that he was wrong?
consensus shmensus
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 15:20 ET by jon_torlinWhat makes up this whole situation is the people who deliver all the information of one kind or another, manipulated data, distortion of data and so on.
Much of what makes up "global warming" are theories and that's all they are, just ideas that have yet to be tested in a controlled enviroment to prove it. Just because you have a theory doesn't mean it's the right one. And that's all that's been thrown at us in the name of "global warming/climate change" based on misinterpretation of events such as Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunami that killed 500,000 people in Indonesia.
Nothing more than theories, and yet we have scientists who are out there proposing these theories with alarmism as if they were real and will happen regardless of the fact that there's nothing to prove they are accurate....except when they don't happen, which is proof there, the theories are wrong.
Let's face it, we hate to be wrong about ideas and suppositions and theories if we made them. But it happens. It doesn't matter what the subject is, be it weather or anything else.
The real culprits are those who attempt to deceive(successfully in some circles) in an attempt to implement an agenda such as control rather than actually doing the well-meaning idea of "helping our planet." Don't get me wrong, I know there are those who want to help our planet, but there are so many kinds of people in that area that it ranges from just plain idiotic to those who use common sense. I'm talking about those elitists like Algore, Obeyme, Pelousy, and many more. I'm talking about those businessmen who attempt to take an advantage in something that's little more than a pyramid scheme like the billionaire who wanted to start a windfarm in Texas. Even GE got in on the bandwagon and look how far their control goes.
All those elitists and more are more interested in control of people rather than really pursuing the once-formerly silly theory of global warming. They could care less about "saving the planet." This is how a lot of scientists and others get caught in the crossfire, by being sucked in and allowed a bigger soap box to push these fautly theories which allows the Congress to pave the way to enacting laws that outlaw incandescent light bulbs and forcing unproven or unreliable technologies on the Americans or forcing farmers to lose money by not allowing water for their farmlands under penalty of punishing fines or jail.
You have to separate all these people out in order to understand what you're dealing with in this humongous hoax that is global warming/climate change. You have the deceivers who are taking advantage of the wackos to convince regular people that there's a problem and it doesn't help that it goes all the way to the White House and Congress which creates confusion for most people because those in the White House and Congress are supposed to REPRESENT the people, which we've seen very little of lately. The confusion is for the average American who would say "why would they lie?"when they are presented these faulty and unproven theories.
That's the real travesty of what's going on.
The damage would be enormous if these people are allowed to continue pursuing these theories even after they've been proven false.
-Jon
The damage would be enormus
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 16:32 ET by Huapakechi*"The damage would be enormous if these people are allowed to continue
pursuing these theories even after they've been proven false."
What is it that makes you think that enormus damage isn't the intent?
It has the hallmarks of the cloward-piven strategy, writ large.
<snip>Columbia University professors Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven who
wrote an article in 1966 for The Nation magazine. “The article was published on
May 2, 1966 and laid out what is now known as the ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’. The
plan calls for the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the welfare
rolls to the point of collapsing our economy and then implementing socialism by
nationalizing many private institutions,” explains a synopsis on the Worldview
Radio website. “Cloward and Piven studied Saul Alinsky just like Hillary Clinton
and President Obama.”
Alinsky is considered to be the founder of modern community organizing in
America. Alinsky’s teachings influenced Obama early in his career as a community
organizer on the far South Side of Chicago. Obama worked for Gerald Kellman’s
Developing Communities Project where he learned and taught Alinsky’s methods for
community organizing. Obama would later work for ACORN (the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now.<end> (emphasis mine)
I know it's the intent
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 17:47 ET by jon_torlinBelieve me, I know it's the intent, it's one of many tricks in the bag of tricks that are occupying the White House and Congress to destroy America as we know it.
Global warming just happens to be the convenient albeit incorrect reason, kinda like cutting off a hand to help someone who has a splinter in a finger. As long as they are using that reason, that gives them the means to attempt to control the masses and bankrupting the country in the process....even though it's already bankrupt.(Hello, TARP! Hello, Stimulus!)
-Jon
Here's Nasa's Hansen advising Obama to use AGW to...
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 22:45 ET by Army BratRedistribute wealth.
This was covered earlier by our friends here at Newsbusters in January...
The eco-socialism cat was let out of the bag on page five of a PDF
Hansen published [1] at Columbia University's website on December 29
(emphasis added, h/t Britain's Guardian [2], file photo):
29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C.
United States of America
Dear Michelle and Barack,
We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that
will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be
born.
Barack has spoken of ‘a planet in peril’ and noted that
actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the
nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.
We
apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to
these ‘details’ could make all the difference in what surely will be
the most important matter of our times. [...]
(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100% dividend”.
A
rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support
needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved
building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction
and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one
practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase
energy efficiency.
A rising carbon price is essential to “decarbonize” the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The
most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and
coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then
appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels.
The public’s near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will
be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
The
public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on
a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two
child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A
person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A
person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than
the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be
supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the
expense of the public.
The tax will spur innovation as
entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon
energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of
consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to
purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and
effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income
people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to
come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus
economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate
increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon
emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice
versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from
half way around the world.
The carbon tax has social benefits.
It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times,
providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will
encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the
dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody
pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.
“Cap
and trade” generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes,
yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public
is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast,
would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security. [...]
"yielding non productive millionaires..." Replace thae "m" in millioinaires with a "b" and you get Al Gore.
He got the part about "The public is fed up with such business.", regarding Cap and Trade...and that's about it.
The man is evil and doesn't appear to know it.
islam is a lie and Truth is killing it.
Consensus is not science
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 16:36 ET by Red JeepAt one time by consensus people thought the world was flat.
The "consensu" they speak of...
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 17:06 ET by Army Bratis 600 scientists. That's approximately 1% of the scientists out there.
I've posted this before but...here are 31,000 that say no consensus.
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-gl...
There is and and has never been a consensus...at least not the one that the global warming alarmists speak of.
islam is a lie and Truth is killing it.
And this
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 18:57 ET by celatorAnd some thought this also...
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
On Science & Concensus
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 18:30 ET by acumenI'm inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future, and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world, will be probably a good deal nearer to the brave new world pattern (Aldous Huxley - Brave New World) than to the 1984 (George Orwell - 1984) pattern, they will a good deal nearer not because of any humanitarian qualms of the scientific dictators but simply because the BNW (Brave New World) pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.
That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they're living. The state of servitude the state of being, having their differences ironed out, and being made amenable to mass production methods on the social level, if you can do this, then you have, you are likely, to have a much more stable and lasting society.
Aldous Huxley - Berkley Language Center Speech March 20, 1962
"Eugene Robinson: But we
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 19:54 ET by ckc1227"Eugene Robinson: But we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we know the planet is hotter than it was a century ago."
Who can argue with such brilliant logic? You should be a climate scientist for the IPCC, Mr. Robinson.
Hey Eugene, What's a Confounder??
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 20:29 ET by shannon76From climate opionator and Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist, Eugene Robinson: "But we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we know the planet is hotter than it was a century ago."
Yeah...and..??
Actually the recent period of global cooling during THIS century also coincides with George W. Bush's presidency, the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series, and the arrival of Tim Tebow at the University of Florida. So, maybe they're the reasons global "warming" stopped. How about instead of passing this cap & tax boondoggle we just let Tebow continue playing at the University of Florida for the rest of his life? (I'm not high on the Red Sox, ya see).
"...and we know the planet is hotter than it was a century ago."
Yeah...and how about a decade ago? Are we hotter now, Eugene? What part of the epidemiological concept of confounder does Eugene NOT get?
???
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 20:37 ET by wenders99Robinson keeps using the melting caps as proof that the skeptics shouldn't get excited. Has he seen the melting himself? Did he see it 100 years ago? I guess he still doesn't understand the conspiracy.
Bandwagon puller
Sat, 11/28/2009 - 21:03 ET by Jerry MackRobinson has been a " The Earth is on Fire " bangwagon puller from the get-go. For him to write this article something bigtime must have pulled his chain. His next article on this will determine if he is just blowing smoke.