The Climate Change Emails

I openly admit, I trust sci­entific con­sensus more than a mob of raging, pas­sion­ate, well-meaning indi­vidu­als. Because a mob of pas­sion­ate, well-meaning, but ulti­mately raging indi­vidu­als do not own PhDs in the fields they are cri­ti­ciz­ing. How­ever, they have there roles in soci­ety, mainly to think crit­ic­ally about the issues, and to place their trust in people with the cre­den­tials to make the right choices.

That said, the appar­ent brouhaha over so-called evid­ence against cli­mate change has finally brought about the diver­sion of time by people who aren’t affil­i­ated with the cli­mate research to debunk these assertions.

From what I have read, which isn’t much, because wad­ing through all those email mes­sages would con­sume too much of my time, and I am a ter­rible statistician/mathematician/physicist/climate sci­ent­ist which would ulti­mately make it point­less, I have sub­mit­ted myself to trust­ing the sci­entific method, where dis­agree­ments are not settled through who is the loudest, but who presents the most com­pel­ling evidence.

In this regard, the emails that have been exposed have been delib­er­ately mis­quoted, which amounts to noth­ing more than char­ac­ter assas­sin­a­tion. Data from dif­fer­ent mod­els have pro­duced the same graphs neces­sary to show that the warm­ing trend is real, and the sink­ing island nations will attest to that fact as well.

The Eco­nom­ist has even pub­lished an art­icle regard­ing this over-arching scep­ti­cism that seems to be of the oppos­ite opin­ion simply because it wants to be of the oppos­ite opinion.

What is the conclusion?

Trust the sci­ence, not the pseudoscience.