Statements from Members of Congress
It is continually stunning to me that people can see the evidence before their eyes” and continue to doubt the reality of climate change, he said. He turned to Holdren and said, sarcastically, “I just want to ask you if you’re a member of a global conspiracy.
Rep. Ed Markey:
Senator Barasso, Senator Vitter, Rep. Sensenbrenner and Rep. Issa (Republicans):
We request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into the questions raised by the disclosure of emails from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU). Additionally, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Endangerment Finding, as well as the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule until the Agency can demonstrate that the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised.
“The scientific community enjoys a tremendous amount of public trust. Unfortunately, the themes exposed in the CRU documents led to a loss of confidence in certain individuals as dispassionate arbiters of climate science,” Broun said in his letter. “At the least, the contents of the emails point to a troubling trend of groupthink where data is manipulated and withheld, scientific journals are intimidated, and reputations are attacked for political expedience,” the letter continued.
Statements from The Obama Administration
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (also a scientist):
The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus … that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity.
White House Science Advisor John Holdren:
However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it.
On the second part, I think Carol Browner addressed that last week, on the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among — most people — in dispute anymore.
Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy:
Well, first of all, we’ve all seen bits and pieces, we haven’t seen the full e-mails. But I think more importantly there has been for a very long time a very small group of people who continue to say this isn’t a real problem, that we don’t need to do anything. On the other hand, we have 2,500 of the world’s 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? I’m 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.
American Meteorological Society:
The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. This process, which is tied intrinsically to the procedures leading to publication of research results in the peer-reviewed literature, allows the scientific community to confirm some results while rejecting others. It also, in a sense, lessens the impact of any one set of research results, especially as the body of research on any topic grows. The AMS plays an important role in the scientific process through its peer-reviewed publications, as well as through its many other activities, such as scientific conferences. The Society strives to maintain integrity in the editorial process for all its publications.
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.
Opponents of climate change legislation are trying to deceive the American public on climate science. After years attacking the science on its merits and failing, they’re now using stolen e-mails to attack climate scientists directly.
Our understanding of climate science is based on decades of research from thousands of scientists. These e-mails don’t affect what we know about human activity driving dangerous levels of global warming or the measures we must take to address it.
I think it is important for scientists to clearly state that if basic data were withheld, or if there was unprofessional tampering with the peer-review process, we do not condone these acts. It is equally essential to emphasize that alleged problems with a few scientists’ behavior do not change the consensus understanding of human-induced, global climate change, which is a robust hypothesis based on well-established observations and inferences.
James McCarthy, a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author
Scientifically, it means little. All scientists know that this kind of language and kidding goes on verbally all the time. Some of us forget that email has the potential to become public at any time. The public perception is another matter. There may be some people who do not know any scientist personally and think they are lily pure, dedicated (do-gooder) nerds. These private comments might lead to less confidence in science. It is a shame, since our country is so scientifically illiterate and is easily swayed by perceptions that have little to do with scientific method and culture. They have very little influence on my opinion.
James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
The “contrarians” or “deniers” do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.
Bart Verheggen of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science:
t is not unlikely that this event may have some real repercussions for the public perception of climate science, however unfair it may seem (unfair both in terms of the actual intended meaning of the emails, as in terms of the way they were obtained). ”Skeptics” will certainly try to get as much mileage out of this as possible, in order to undermine the science and the political process (e.g. Copenhagen). However, there are also plenty of sane voices commenting on the issue.
Michael Tobis, Research Scientist Associate at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics:
One of the issues with how the UEA emails are perceived is whether the reader understands the context of the dubious pseudoscience and constant harassment the field faces. If you understand that, the emails are understandable and mostly excusable. If you don’t, if you think that normal science is being stymied, then you come away with a very different impression.
Simon Donner, Professor in the Geography Department at the University of British Columbia:
This episode is not a window into how climate science works. It’s a window into how electronic communication has altered our standards and the way we work. Nobody looks good here. We should all be embarrassed.
James Annan, Climate Researcher:
Most of the contents that have had people getting so excited about on the blogs seem pretty innocuous to me – the usual to-and-fro of scientists discussing, arguing, sometimes exhibiting frustration. We are, after all, human. A handful of messages hint at something a bit worse, and I’m not going to excuse anyone who has behaved in an unethical manner, but it is hard to condemn anyone based on a few cherry-picked emails, many of which in any case have straightforward explanations. If there was a lot of serious malpractice, I’d expect to see more substantial evidence from the past decade of email at one of the world’s leading climate research centres. On the whole it is thin gruel indeed. It is clear that most of what people are getting excited by is just the typical banter of scientists engaged in debate and discussion, and many of the commenters just don’t have a clue about the scientific process. The person who quoted our email correspondence about the edits to the manuscript claimed that this proved how political all us scientists are! In fact we were simply improving the paper in accordance with various comments from reviewers (which we basically agreed with), which is how the peer review process normally works.
In summary, there are probably some minor lapses in there, but everyone who has read any of the emails is already guilty of something worse and there’s no firm evidence of major crimes.
Media Matters Debunks Conservative Claims on SwiftHack Scandal
Media Matters: GOP “idea man” Gingrich repeats right wing’s tired “Climategate” smears
Nature: Climatologists Under Pressure
Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.
Nicholas Stern: Confused climate skeptics
Bradform Plumer: Another Round With The CRU E-mails
Paul Krugman and George Will Discuss SwiftHack Scandal on ABC’s This Week
Real Climate: CRU Hack: More context
Get Energy Smart Now: Does John Broder know that Media Matters exists?
Science Progress: Not so Swift, Hackers: Why the Scandal Sometimes Called “ClimateGate” is Overblown
Phil Jones Temporarily Steps Down as Director of Climate Research Unit and East Anglia University
