‘Climategate’ for Idiots: can we get back to reality now?

A few days ago, I wrote an op-ed on the recent “Climategate” email scandal that not only lashed out at the stubborn skeptics and deniers, but also the scientific institutions purported to have committed the said “scandal”.

Here is a quick refresh of some of the things I wrote:

“The Climate Research Unit (CRU) scientists whose emails were “leaked” online made a huge mistake: being stupid. Regardless of the intent, no one, on either side of the aisle, will take them on their word again. The global warming feud is bitter and cold (that pun was slightly intended), and the actions of said scientists are entirely unacceptable. Immense pressure from an entire politically-driven industry intent on crushing their every effort is no excuse for bending the facts, or hiding them completely.

“Although I am typically the antagonist against any and all climate change deniers and/or skeptics – as they are generally either a mislead or misleading bunch devoted to greed and political gain – taken on the surface, said skeptics do have a point as well as a valid argument with regard to the statements made in these leaked emails.

“While whether or not the statements within the stolen emails were taken out of context is debatable, undeniable is the fact that their very presence has raised questions over whether or not the argument for global warming is valid.”

Now, I stand firmly with everything I wrote, especially that last sentence, but I would like to add a brief amendment in light of some recent “news” that has since hit the media.

As like many who are concerned with the plight of the world’s future in the face of climate change, I was perhaps overly assertive on placing negative blame on the scientists in question, while not having full insight into the depth of the naivete of the anti-global-warming crowd.

As it turns out, “whether or not the statements within the stolen emails were taken out of context is debatable” is now the topic of the day.

While the naysayers literally jumped at the chance to debunk all scientific study pertaining to the effects of climate change, yanking literally three sentences out of over 1,000 items of correspondence and deeming them a smoking gun, we proponents for the environmental movement side-stepped that debate entirely in a rush to defend the real science. Now, the debate is settled. At least, for the intelligent people out there. The idiots are still buying Hummers.

I won’t bore you with my own take of the evidence – as I recently came upon a brilliantly done video by way of the good folks over at EarthFirst.com (via The Huffington Post) that lays it all out completely.

Here is what they say:

“RealClimate debunked the claims, as did the Union of Concerned Scientists. DeSmogBlog smacked them down, too. But apparently, reading through all the articles that explain exactly how conspiracy theorists are wrong about the hacked emails that supposedly prove global warming to be a scam is too hard for most skeptics. So, we’d like to present this idiot-proof video: it’s easy to follow, even if you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed.”

Some highlights of the video:

• Amateur skeptics took 3 sentences of “scandal” entirely out of context without understanding the scientific terminology applied. Yes, “trick” and “decline” were actual proven scientific jargon that did NOT mean what they thought it meant.
• Had these amateur skeptics bothered to read (or publicize) the sentences before and after the sentences in question, they would have gotten the full story in FAVOR of scientific proof of climate change.
• “Lack of warming at the moment” references last year’s solar cycle, NOT climate change effects. Again, a tidbit explained dutifully in the rest of the email.
• Right wing-nuts citing the same three sentences again and again, without bothering to examine the rest of the documents for the full explanation.

At one point in the video, a climate change skeptic video-blogger smugly suggests that the use of word “decline” was suggesting the actual cooling of global temperatures. However, as evidence in the rest of the email and the subsequent studies it cited, “decline” was in reference to tree-ring data, NOT global temps.

Apparently, FOX News and Rush Limbaugh did not think that was worth sharing, and the video blogger never knew the difference.

As the video’s narrator states: “If I had little understanding of climate science, and little time to do any research, that’s probably what I would think too.”

Take a look at the video below – it is just under 10 minutes long, but I promise it is a very easy and often funny viewing.