"ClimateGate" refers to the hacking of the Climate Research Unit in the UK, a primary center espousing man-made global warming claims, producing e-mails and documents from scientists showing several alarming things:
1. Their climate models are based on profoundly sloppy and undocumented computer code, poorly-kept guesswork-analyzed datasets, and only a rudimentary understanding of the chemistry and general workings of the Earth, the variability of the sun, and so on. For example, those dealing with the models often have no idea what assorted rows of numbers mean for historical data, and their globe modeling is exceedingly primitive and flawed on its best day. (Hurricane-oriented weather modeling is decades beyond their global warming climatology models, and yet even the newest hurricane models can have errors of hundreds of miles even over a timespan of days.) Worse, much of the data used as input is synthesized unnecessarily from other input data (e.g. not using real weather info from the 20th Century but only predicted weather for that time period based on prior years), and model output usually features enormous variances compared to the claimed tenth-of-a-degree accuracy of their predictions. Almost pure guesswork is used when pondering effect and concentration of pollutants and particulates, often oversimplifying or ignoring the matter (as had already been noted elsewhere, such as recently in the journal Science). And, of course, the sun is usually discounted, despite its known cycles and their effects (see "Maunder Minimum", "Little Ice Age") and its current variance (see "Modern Maximum").
2. The scientific method is based on the idea that you develop a hypothesis and test it. The results of the test are supposed to be reproducible by other scientists. In the case of models, reality is the test. Man-made global warming predictions have almost invariably failed both in the short term and over the decades since the beginning of the claims (once they got past the global cooling claims of the 70s). Nevertheless, one way to at least allow other scientists -- including those skeptical of your claims -- to understand the claims would be to share the details of how you arrived at your conclusions.
Man-made global warming proponents, however, jealously guard their raw data, their model code (see #1), and their
methods (see #3), so as to avoid critique by those skeptical of their view (see #4). Even when the government-funded data is requested via Freedom of Information Act requests (the UK has one as well), information was removed from the data to render it unusable and an unabashed conspiracy to delete correspondence about the research was engaged in.
3. When the model outputs do not correspond to preconceptions, the models are run again and tweaked by applying specialized numerical transformations or simply factoring in previously-unfactored bits of other datasets (see #1). The methodology is quite ad hoc. "Trick"s are used to "hide the decline" where needed, and evidence-based events like the Medieval Warm Period for which man-made global warming folks have no man-based explanation are intentionally "contain"ed . . . minimized in their models. This is done in the hopes their existence and claims regarding it by skeptics (who correctly note the lack of SUVs and coal power plants in Medieval times) can be thwarted early by making it seem small compared to what is claimed for the 20th Century.
4. A concerted effort is in play by prominent global warming scientists to keep skeptical scientists out of the peer-reviewed literature. This effort involves attempts at character assassination of opponents, campaigns for the firing of research journal editors who are 'soft' on skeptics, and other forms of pressure. The absence of significant skeptic presence in peer-reviewed literature is then used as 'proof' that skeptics are dealing in poor science.
5. Global warming scientists have good relations with members of the press.
None of the above is meant to suggest that global warming is an evil conspiracy. It is, however, proof that there are a bunch of like-minded idiots (plus a few plain old badguys) pushing the claims. That the claims could be politicized so long ago by the likes of new carbon-credit billionaire Al Gore ("the science is settled; the debate is over") and made to play into international anti-capitalist agendas and mixed with the modern secular religion of ignorant environmentalism is just proof of the capacity for self-deception of a gaggle of like-minded idiots operating en masse.
Nevertheless, Al Gore will continue to sleep at night in sweatshop-created, inefficiently-shipped pajamas in his extreme-carbon-footprint mansion. Global Warming alarmists will try to pretend that, yes, the sky is still falling, so we still have to sign treaties that condemn the economy of the United States and EU and require taxation to give to developing countries, because somehow that will correct the environmental injustice of our pollution (though China doesn't have to, because . . . er . . . well, because).
The fact is, humans can have an impact on the environment. But all the energy of man pales in comparison to the energy of the Earth, and all the industrial smokestacks, cattle farts, and SUV tailpipes in the world can't hope to compete with the incredible balance of this massively huge volume of atmosphere across the planet. LED lightbulbs and hydrogen cars and nuclear fusion and nanomaterials are worthwhile goals for a lot of reasons . . . there is no need to make false and bogus claims of imminent fiery death (or ocean-level-rise drowning) in order to get them.
******************************
So how best for science to respond? Well, first, get the bums out, and then have everything these lying dirtbags have touched redone to confirm or deny their claims.
What global warming people shouldn't do is try to ignore or get even more arrogant over the matter.
Note these comments from a claimed scientist in response to the controversy for an example of the worst possible response:
"Science is not a democratic process. Nor is it something akin to the
french revolution. What exactly are you going to do with that data?
Nothing but hurl criticism based on ignorance. Having to defend
ourselves from that shit increases our already monumental stress
levels.
You lack the training or intellectual capacity to see
anything but a string of numbers you cannot understand and your eyes
glaze over. {...} We do what we do because we are (for the most part) one of the few
groups of people on this planet which has the ability and willingness
to{.}"
"Scientists do not serve you directly, and the data we obtain is beyond your capacity to analyze."
The point that science is not a democratic process is actually quite true, and ironic from this person given that he's supporting the same folks who claim a consensus of scientists dictates reality. It does not. Reality exists, and would do so even if all the people of Earth failed to recognize it and instead believed the contrary.
But beyond that, all we have is elitism and undeserved arrogance.
The global warming guys were liars and scoundrels perpetrating a falsehood upon the whole world, and they suffered from the same sort of undeserved arrogance. So afraid were they to be criticized, they finally got to the point . . . no doubt bit by bit . . . where they would cross almost any line. They weren't breaking kneecaps yet, but given that one of these wannabe scientists claimed he was going to be very tempted to punch a particular opponent when next they met, it seems it was only a matter of time.
In politics, science, and so much more, we must always be diligent against those who would unleash the worst traits of humanity.
