Responses to ‘Climategate heats up’

Response to ‘Climategate heats up’ MondayâÄôs letter pointed out a recent case in history where real scientific data has been suppressed or possibly manipulated to the advantage of scientific researchers. To some, this is a heinous offense, but to others this is nothing new. The scandal, dubbed âÄúClimategate,âÄù revealed that climate researchers at a British university had used e-mail correspondence to decide what data to use, or not use, and to make casual comments, including some deprecating ones toward global warming skeptics. What this truly exposes is that it is hard for climate scientists to account for a period of âÄúnon-warmingâÄù and that people can be harsh or critical of naysayers, but it also purveys the uncertainty of the future of our climate. We are currently conducting a huge geophysical experiment by manipulating the composition of our atmosphere, increasing CO2, CH4 and other greenhouse gases. Humans are undoubtedly contributing to this experiment, and we can only hypothesize, theorize and test the outcome, which in many cases looks grim. For a history of the global warming debate starting in 1930, I invite you to search âÄúThe American Denial of Global WarmingâÄù on YouTube. It may be a lengthy view, but it exposes much of the discourse that has brought us to where we are today. There has been fraud along the way, but at least now there is consensus that humans are a contributing factor. Instead of harping upon âÄúglobal warming,âÄù consider climate change, public health and toxins in the products we bring into our homes. Is it healthy for a community to live next to a coal plant or to be flooded by a hurricane? Scientific literature can be seen in the eyes of the beholder. Check sources, experiment sponsors and, most importantly, question. Justin Lindenberg University undergraduate student Response to ‘Climategate heats up’ Once we fan away the authorâÄôs gasconade, his argument seems scrawnier than any of the allegedly fudged climatology. DelingpoleâÄôs quotes lack a meaningful context; we could easily project conspiracy into ambiguous terms like âÄúnature trickâÄù and âÄúthe decline,âÄù but we first need to know that âÄúAR4âÄù is not a steak sauce brand. Cherry-picking a single university hardly justifies his ultimatums against the bulk of other credible institutions, which cement anthropogenic climate change. Apparently, we must accept either human meteorological telekinesis or human powerlessness under an omnipotent deity. I actually agree with the author that The Minnesota Daily is a âÄúwonderful publicationâÄù but would suggest that real âÄúfairness in journalismâÄù requires that logically flabby arguments be ignored. Aaron Victorin-Vangerud University undergraduate student