A few weeks ago, and unknown hacker broke into the British Climate Research Unit computer system at East Anglia University, since then in the Climate Debate circle there has been a massive uproar, with climate skeptics, such as those of ClimateDepot.com, pointing to the so-called incriminating statements in said emails as proof that global warming is a hoax. There have been many seemingly flawless statements made that these scientists tried to make other scientists who supposedly held a different viewpoints conform and that there was an attempt to hide the evidence of a decline in temperatures as indicated by tree-rings. But as it is usual in this case one need only go back to the source to find the truth. It always comes out; it’s merely a matter of time.

The people calling these series of emails “Climate gate” and proof that Global Warming is a lie, actually only succeed in proving their ignorance and single-mindedness. It is highly apparent, after reading these emails, that all of their statements made in regards to fraud, coercion and cooking the books are made with a complete lack of understanding of scientific process and terminology. For instance, terms such as forcing, plotting and schemes are made in direct reference to the hypothetical computer model, SCENGEN and MAGICC that are used to predict possible outcomes in climate scenarios based on current data, not the lay definition that would make them damning. These are terms used in working with data sets, not for nefarious behavior. The scenario generating computer models were not the basis of the science of Global Warming, but rather a tool at predicting our future, given we continue on the path we are on. The comments to withhold the SCENGEN data were made precisely for that reason; they were speculative models, not because they were trying to hide anything.

To the contrary of those purporting fraud, these scientists took great pains to ensure the actual data they presented to the public, to their peers and IPCC was factual and substantiated, and can be observed chastising each other in these emails to that end, the same emails that are supposed to be evidence of ridicule of those who held differing viewpoints. Obviously many of these climate nay-sayers have never been through either a masters or doctoral thesis, where one is harangued to the point of tears in some cases, but it is done to bring home the point that data must be accurate and substantiated. As a scientist, if you can not prove your hypotheses to be flawless and based on sound research, you are nothing. At least one of these so called “conformist efforts” was actually a rather steamed missive about how one of the scientists had included their personal opinion in something, as opposed to letting the facts speak for themselves. In science there is no room for ego or opinion, only fact, and that was the message of the email. It is the exact opposite of what some are trying to make it out to seem.

The now famous statement made about “hide the decline” refers to the tree ring data that is extensively covered in these emails, and if they were indeed trying to hide something, why did they publish a paper about it in Nature in 1997? Once again the statements are taken out of context and ignorant to scientific process, hide the decline refers to technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature, something that is quite common in scientific circles and nothing out of the ordinary. It had nothing to do with falsifying information as the discussion was in reference to the fact that the tree ring data of the last 50 years did not correlate with other data that did support the trend of Global warming. It also was made in reference again to the hypothetical climate scenario mapping computer programs, not deliberately misleading the public. These completely baseless claims made on the behalf of those purporting climate gate, are the true deception, for they are deliberately capitalizing on the fact that most will not take the time to read these emails, let alone understand them.

But let us dig deeper into this, and the circumstances under which these emails were obtained. The CRU’s computer system was hacked, these emails were stolen. Apparently one of the scientists involved in this, Dr. Weaver, had his office repeatedly broken into before this happened, proving that someone was trying to find something, anything, and was willing to go to illegal lengths to do so. This is shameful, but unfortunately a rather common tactic used in some circles in this country, and it is used because they know they are in the wrong when they play by the rules, and so instead try to circumvent them and then expect rational intelligent adults to look past the fact that they are criminals. They add to their list of sins not only greed and theft, but lying as in twisting the emails out of context, and passing off their regurgitations as fact, and now costing an innocent man his job, the researcher Phil Jones.

Billions of dirty energy dollars stand to be lost with carbon limits and that is the truth of why there is even a discussion about man made Climate Change possibly being a hoax. These people would put their own greed above the lives of their fellow human beings, above the lives of their families and children, and their grandchildren and great grandchildren yet to be born. Their selfishness is so overblown and caricatured that it would be laughable, if there weren‘t such high stakes involved. The really ridiculous part of all this is that they wouldn‘t even have to lose money necessarily, even though most of them have more money than any one man should need or want. There are plenty of green technologies to be invested in, plenty of money to be made in the new energy economy, if we really must always boil everything down to money. But these people are cowards, not only because of the tactics they will resort to in an effort to back up their shoddy claims of fraud and conspiracy, but for their unwillingness to change, when the truth is change is the only constant in the universe. They would sacrifice the lives of all their descendents, just to make a buck, and to not have to admit they are wrong. These are the death throes of Big Oil and Big Coal, the violent desperate attempts to cling to the old order, which is rotting in their hands. They shriek with the shrieks of the damned, as they begin to realize how doomed they really are.

These people who would perpetuate this nonsense know that as the climate talks in Copenhagen continue, their policies of destruction, of desecration, of greed are going to be outlawed. They know that with the grassroots organizing of groups like 350.org, the momentum is against them. Even Phil Jones made the point that “This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks,“. The questions need to be asked, who broke into those computers, how did they do it, and the real question is who paid for it?

I would think the first possible answer to this would be to look at the people who are perpetuating the lie that these emails were incriminating. The conservative right would be the most likely candidate. The supposed balanced environmental discussion (balanced as in Fox news) that is ClimateDepot.com, would be the logical place to start. This site is run by an individual by the name of Marc Morano. Mr. Morano until spring of 2009 (which should be noted was the beginning of Obama’s term and the end of Bush’s) served as the communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works where he worked for Senator Inhofe, a man that is vehemently against Gay rights, has denied Global Warming all along, and whose major campaign contributors were large industries in the aircraft, defense and energy sectors. Which leaves the undeniable fact that this supposed balanced site is indeed run by the same Republican lackeys that are in bed with Big Oil and Big Coal. Mr. Morano is also the man behind the 2004 smear campaign done against Senator Kerry, run by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group later discredited, as many of the veterans who were a part of it would have never served with Kerry. Mr. Morano also was the producer for Rush Limbaugh show in the 1990’s.

To further the point one need only research the group behind ClimateDepot.com. It says at the top of the page that the site is run by CFACT, and one need only click on the link to go to the website of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a conservative anti-environmentalism think tank. This non-profit with a 1.5 million dollar budget has received money from Exxon and Chevron. There is no balance here. Climate Depot is the one cooking the books, not the CRU scientists whose careers have been severely damaged if not ruined. I think if people really would like to investigate the crime here, they should look no further than whoever the thief was who hacked these emails, and the Republican dirt bags who funded him, and who would most profit from the very real threat of climate change being undermined, and who stand to lose the most if a meaningful climate change treaty were agreed to in Copenhagen.

There are plenty of flashy graphics, and catchy headlines, on ClimateDepot.com, but where is the evidence to back this up? Give us the names of these reputable scientists and groups, who they work for if there is such overwhelming scientific evidence against Global Warming, instead of opinion blogs and cartoons. The numbers are on the side that Climate Change is real, and that they coincide with the Industrial Age, as those emails you try to hold up as proof of conspiracy actually show the very real evidence of alteration of climate since 1850 as proven by those infamous tree rings, and even though the data falls off in the mid 20th century, the very next sentence states that the basal area of young trees explodes. But forget the tree rings; there are plenty of other sources from which to glean an understanding of the issue of Global Warming. Here are data tables from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the University of Illinois, NASA, and NOAA. Are you going to discredit them as well?