The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt. The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming. Instead, the controversy highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their knowledge and, especially, to respond when science comes under attack.(1) "The central lesson of Climategate is not that climate science is corrupt." Wrong. The central lesson of Climategate is that climate science is corrupt to its core. The leading scientists/advocates of global warming cooked the data, lied about findings, "hid the decline," and colluded in twisting facts.
(2) "The leaked e-mails do nothing to disprove the scientific consensus on global warming." Wrong. The leaked e-mails DO disprove the scientific consensus on global warming. In the emails, leading global warming scientists discuss with one another the best ways to keep dissenting reports - from non-consenting scientists - from reaching the public. The successful censorship of opposing views does not consensus make.
(3) "The controversy highlights that in a world of blogs, cable news and talk radio, scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their knowledge." Pardon me while I laugh hysterically. Climate "scientists" have had every forum on the planet - including those put forward by the United Nations with all its wealth - including every fawning branch of the mainstream media - including the public relations departments of every university on the planet - including the websites of well-financed eco-fund-raising organizations like the Sierra Club - to get their messages out. "Scientists are poorly equipped to communicate their knowledge"? Are you joking?
Might I add the fact that it's a whole lot easier to "communicate their knowledge" if those scientists didn't refuse to communicate their knowledge. See addendum below.
(4) "Scientists are poorly equipped to ... respond when science comes under attack." Only when those scientists have been caught in a monumental fraud. Only when it is exposed that the foundations upon which their conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming are no more than sand. How might they respond when they are caught red-handed in manipulating data and building "fudge factors" into their computer models? With a glitzier PowerPoint presentation?
Is this nitwit serious?
I don't know how it is that this columnist wormed his way onto the pages of the venerable Washington Post but his presence makes a laughingstock of everyone associated with it.
My suggestion would be for someone to give more consideration next time to the content of that which is offered for publication rather than the credentials of the person making the submission.
This is pathetic.
- - -
The Dog Ate My Global Warming Evidence: Having Refused to Disclose Temperature Records for Years, UN's Climate Research Unit Now Claims Its Evidence of Warming Was Just Lost