A Washington Times article broke today claiming that they obtained e-mails from several climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences which contained their idea to hit back at skeptics. An honest, open debate? Release their data? No no, that’s archaic thinking. They wanted:
“an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach”
by running an advertisement attacking skeptic’s credibility. They lamented:
“Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,”
Well-funded, merciless enemies? They should read Joanna Nova’s article, which shows this ‘well-funded’ claim is true, but only of the climate scientists themselves.
Play by different rules? Let’s make something clear: climate scientists aren’t allowing dissent in the scientific community over climate change. Remember those climategate e-mails? They were full of scientists in high positions intentionally squashing any skeptic’s data. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Familiar? We have been forced to work outside the scientific process because the process is broken.
This whole thing could be easily resolved. The scientists would release their data, admit to their mistakes, and accept that skeptics aren’t just “well-funded, merciless enemies”. Instead, they take the approach of attacking our credibility. It isn’t our credibility that has caused this problem for climate scientists. It’s the fact that we have revealed these climate scientists have no credibility.
Another thing. Haven’t these guys learned something from climategate? DON’T USE E-MAIL if you have something you don’t want seen in public. Jeesh.