On “Climategate”

Those who refuse to believe in climate change have ginned up the so-called Climategate scandal to obfuscate the inescapable reality of global warming; for more, see David Roberts at Grist, or RealClimate, or (my favorite), a letter writer to Andrew Sullivan (below). 

In a recent post, you get to the true insanity of the whole debate
over "Climategate": so-called "conservatives" clinging desperately to every bit of
contradictory evidence (hence their celebratory glee over the East
Anglia emails) while denigrating as left-wing propaganda whatever
evidence supports it.

I know I don't need to remind you of this, but
for a long time it has struck me how un-conservative this
position is.

I certainly have my share of skepticism as to the
absolute validity of the science involved, and the release of these
emails certainly supports the value of such skepticism. But the real
conservative response to the debate is to actually try to conserve the
conditions that the Earth has existed within rather than blindly
engaging—blinkered by a consumerist culture that is incapable of
considering its long-term effects—in a vast, and potentially,
irreversible experiment with our atmosphere; one of the very conditions
of our continuing existence on this, our only home. 

Perhaps what we need to do is stop calling this attitude conservative and start pointing out how radical it actually is.

Spencer Weart, the M.I.T. physicist who literally wrote the book on global warming, also remarks interestingly:

Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is
suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set
of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate
deception and other professional malfeasance.

Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander
legitimate cancer researchers. In blogs, talk radio and other new
media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued
by the national science academies, scientific societies, and
governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based
on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected
researchers. Extraordinary and, frankly, weird.

But for those of us who can keep a sense of humor about the situation, perhaps the best aspect of this whole absurd "debate" is the nuttiness of the climate change deniers it brought out into the open. Here's an example from Rod Dreher's right-wing site.

All you "Warmers" ("Warmed-overs"?)are a bunch of religious nuts
trying to force you beliefs on the world through an Enviro-Theocracy.

Right. Okay then.

2 thoughts on “On “Climategate”

  1. Was it a “so called Watergate?”

    No one is denying climate change. What we’ve seen in this past week is a potentially mortal blow to the current crop of AGW advocates. Does that mean there is no AGW? No. It does mean they are not to be believed. Big differences.


  2. “Watergate” was the real deal, a dirty trick launched with the backing of a U.S. president.

    Hacked emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia?

    Don’t think it’s the same.

    Don’t know what it is exactly, but it’s not Watergate.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: