In a post discussing FactCheck.org’s take on ClimateGate, Little Green Footballs begins:
FactCheck.org takes an in-depth look at “Climategate,” and notices something: there’s no “there” there.
No conspiracies, no cover-ups, no fakery. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
After extensively quoting FactCheck re ClimateGate/Swifthack, the post concludes:
here’s a pop quiz for LGF readers — who said this?
“It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change.”
Was it:
- Sarah Palin
- Anthony Watts
- James Inhofe
- Saudi Arabian climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban
And how can you tell the difference?
Here is the summary of FactCheck’s ClimateGate discussion:
Summary
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:
- The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
- Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
- E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.