New Emails Reveal Respect for Science

Even as Sarah Palin weighed-in on the email controversy yesterday in the Washington Post and via Facebook, NRDC’s Climate Center Director Dan Lashof reminded us that “facts are stubborn ."

This morning, Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science, asserted, in the Washington Post, that Palin "distorted the clear scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a result of human behaviors." And 1,700 British scientists reaffirmed today that the science behind global warming is sound.

While the furor around the hacked emails continues to swirl, there’s a largely untold aspect to the story: the lengths that the scientists have gone to respect scientific process.

Here are a small sample (My colleague Pete Altman also blogged on this earlier today.):

Mann to Cook re long-term trends and how to resolve differences: “There are some substantial scientific differences here, lets let them play out the way they are supposed to, objectively, and in the peer reviewed literature.” April 12, 2002. 

Steig explaining goal for paper that explores the Holocene climate record and ice cores. “An example might be that the "thermal maximum" was actually warmer than present – a major issue of contention in the popular literature - and was more-or-less simultaneous in both polar regions. If this is correct, it will be a useful service to the paleoclimate community to demonstrate it. Alternatively, we may find after carefully looking at the data that we CANNOT reach such a conclusion. This would be an equally important result.” [Bold added.] 12/12/2000.

Mann to Cook in an exchange about the possibility of Cook’s research being used to attack Mann: "Lets figure this all out based on good, careful work and see what the data has to say in the end. We're working towards this ourselves, using revised methods and including borehole data, etc. and will keep everyone posted on this." May 2, 2001. 

We also have new expert analysis by groups that have reviewed the emails and here is what they've found:

The PEW Climate Center concluded: “The vast majority of the 1000+ emails are routine and unsuspicious. Perhaps one or two dozen of the email exchanges give the appearance of controversy, though no unethical behavior has yet been documented. Although a small percentage of the emails are impolite and some express animosity toward opponents, when placed into proper context they do not appear to reveal fraud or other scientific misconduct.”

Similarly, the Union of Concerned Scientists has also posted their debunk, agreeing that the emails "do not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised."

While we are likely to hear more noise about the emails in the coming days, I hope that those who truly understand the science-- and the need for action-- will stand up and be heard.