It’s around that time of the year when everyone looks back over the year that was. Okay, it was actually a few days ago but I’m taking a while to get moving again after the Christmas break (and am still in mourning over Australia losing the Ashes). So for my retrospective, I’m only going as far back as last November. At that time, we reached the 12 month anniversary of ‘Climategate’, when private emails were stolen from the University of Anglia’s server, then the Real Climate server was hacked and the emails uploaded onto their server.
There were a number of Climategate retrospectives. The better retrospectives pointed us back to the scientific evidence – what nature is telling us. After all, that’s really what Climategate was about – trying to distract us from the realities being observed now in nature. So here is a retrospective on some of the Climategate retrospectives:
Starting at Skeptical Science (of course), I propose The question that skeptics don’t want to ask about ‘Climategate’ which was ‘Has Climategate changed our scientific understanding of global warming?’ The answer being, of course, that the evidence for human caused global warming is as solid as ever. In fact, the observations of the climate response to greenhouse warming have only gotten stronger over the last year (which we will see shortly).
That week, James Wight also wrote a series of SkS blog posts addressing specific Climategate issues on temperature data, hiding the decline, peer review, the IPCC and FOI (he’s a prolific lad). In December, James diligently adapted his blog posts into rebuttals which have recently been added to our ever growing list of skeptic arguments.
- Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
- Climategate: Keeping Skeptics Out of the IPCC?
- Climategate: Perverting Peer Review?
- Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
- Climategate: Tampering with Temperatures?
- The Fake Scandal of Climategate
- The question that skeptics don’t want to ask about ‘Climategate’
- Climategate a year later