Most of you are probably already aware that recently someone managed to hack into the computer system at CRU (the Climate Research Unit in Great Britain). They stole over 60 megabytes of personal emails, which was posted online.
The denialosphere has trumpeted the contents as proof of the fraudulent behavior of climate scientists, especially Phil Jones at CRU. But what’s most remarkable is that even the bits pointed to as a “smoking gun” really don’t support that idea. There are certainly phrases which seem incriminating when taken out of context — but when put into context are nothing of the kind.
Continuing to suggest that climate scientists generally, and Phil Jones specifically, are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the world about global warming, when there turns out to be no real evidence of it in 10 years of personal communications (only words that can be twisted when taken out of context), demonstrates the idiocy of those who stand by that suggestion. If anything, the messages prove that there is not any conspiracy, and the scientists at CRU did not fudge data or engage in deceptive practices to push their “agenda.”
Certainly the emails contain some unkind words about certain people. I’ve said unkind things about some of them myself (here on this blog for all to see). In my opinion, the unkind words were earned by the loathesome recipients.
Perhaps the most enlightening revelation to come out of this sordid episode is how Gavin Schmidt (at RealClimate) has addressed the issue head-on but avoided any temptation to indulge in mud-slinging, even in the midst of this despicable invasion of privacy, unjustified by any of the contents of the messages. His conduct is exemplary, and illustrates a character and self-control that I can only envy. My respect for him knows no bounds.
My disrespect for the theives in likewise unbounded. They stole private communications, found nothing damning, but proved how willing — nay, eager — they are to distort things to make it seem as though they did. It’s every bit as immature and vindictive as stealing your sister’s diary and posting it on the internet. If she’d confessed to murder, there might be a reason to bring that to light, but when the worst you can find is that she said “I hate that bitch,” you have no business making her private thoughts public.
But that’s the level of the denialists. We’ve known for some time that their scientific arguments are completely bankrupt; now we know that they’re morally bankrupt too.
