November 21, 2024

5 thoughts on “Fudging the Global Warming Data

  1. Thanks for the comment, JPMITB, but as the title of my post suggests, I agree that this says more about scientists than the global warming debate.

    I’m not so sure. I’ve laid out my view of the scandal in our latest blog post. Briefly: it isn’t evidence against Global Warming itself, but it is very strong evidence against the validity of the “all-out emissions reduction” agenda, and it’s the latter that created an unusually strong incentive to fudge data.

    The baseline level of scientific corruption is higher than commonly believed (how many people have heard of this?), but I believe Climategate is nevertheless properly classified as a politically-driven anomaly.

  2. Great post, and I agree that the scandal presents evidence against the “validity of the ‘all-out emissions reduction’ agenda.” However, for outspoken opponents of this agenda like me, this agenda was bogus on so many different levels that this new evidence of academic fraud neither surprises me nor strengthens my views against this agenda.

  3. However, for outspoken opponents of this agenda like me, this agenda was bogus on so many different levels that this new evidence of academic fraud neither surprises me nor strengthens my views against this agenda.

    Yeah, I can say the exact same thing, and I initially didn’t pay much attention to the leak for that reason. However, Climategate now appears to be a watershed moment, drawing the attention of millions of others to what we knew all along.

Comments are closed.