I'm refusing to call it "Climategate." Every time some new government conspiracy (which are never really as bas as they're made out to be) comes to light, the media grabs ahold of it, blows it way out of proportion, and adds "-gate" to the end of it. It's like a new suffix in our language, and it's completely fucking ridiculous. The only one that deserves to end in "-gate" is Watergate, and that's only because that was the name of the place where it happened (okay, that's a simplification, but you get the point). Once again our eagerness to slap easy-to-digest labels on everything rears its ugly head. Ughh!
Anyway...On to what I really wanted to say on the subject. I was originally going to call this post "Bittersweet Vindication," but then I realized that it was a bit too early to call it vindication. You see, I've never really been too concerned when it comes to the environment. I don't recycle, I don't know how big my "carbon footprint is" (and don't care), and I'm not frightened that the world will be uninhabitable for my children (because it will be fine). I've long considered all the hype surrounding global warming to be a product of simple hysteria and people's desire to do good. So when the news came out about those "hacked" e-mails from climate change scientists pulling mathmatical tricks and hiding declines, I felt pretty good about myself for not giving in to paranoia.
But, part of being a skeptic is basing your opinions on facts and reason, and this seemed simply too good to be true. I may not believe in global warming, but I don't think it's all a government conspiracy either. What would they possibly stand to gain from having us believe it? Countries around the globe have spent
billions of dollars trying to reduce carbon emissions, yet few of them have actually hit their goals, and if the alarmists are to be believed, it hasn't made any difference! Individual politicians have benefitted from our belief by saying that they'll do something about it, but they're simply using this issue like they would any other hot-button issue. There are plenty of others to exploit without needing to drum up fear about global warming. On top of all this, it's actually fucking up our daily lives. There are counsellors out there who specialize in treating "green guilt." Some people feel so badly about global warming that they have given themselves a psychological condition. One of the professors at my school said that he doesn't drive because he "feels bad about spending the carbon." I think this has gotten way out of hand.
Turns out those e-mails weren't "hacked," they were "leaked," and there's a difference. They were being compiled for a freedom of information act document, to be released to the public. These were going to come out anyway; the only bit of foul-play is that someone released them early, no doubt to coincide with the Copenhagen conference. Now, I will admit the language in them is fairly suggestive (I'll also admit that I haven't read them, only what I've seen on internet videos both for and against the conspiracy idea). When you're telling someone else to delete their e-mails because of sensitive material, that sorta shows that you're trying to hide something. Maybe they are hiding something, but I would be more inclined to believe that they're trying to hide their ignorance on climate change as opposed to it all being made up. I think what happened is that someone raised a red flag, the world panicked, and these guys got so caught up in their newfound positions of respect and authority that they didn't want to say "It's actually not that bad." Again, I have no evidence for this, but I think it's much more likely than any of the other scenarios I've heard.
What's so bittersweet about this you may ask? It seems to me and many of my new colleagues that the public in general doesn't trust scientists. I don't know exactly why this is, but I have an idea. I think it's because we go into our labs, all secretive and hidden away, and come out with data that's either incomprehensible to the general public, or that contradicts common sense. I want to clarify that bit about it being incomprehensible. I'm not saying that they are incapable of understanding, I'm saying they don't have the background knowledge/vocabulary necessary to make sense of the data. But I think a lot of people see it the other way, that they're too stupid to make sense of it, so they don't even try. I also think that when it contradicts what they've been previously told, they're unwilling to try to understand. So here we are, trying to expand the depths of human knowledge, to further educate everyone, and many people just aren't willing to listen. This is the position we were already in. Now these e-mails come out, and the media/conspiracy theorists/global-warming deniers start screaming about how it's all a lie. You can imagine what sort of effect this has had on the image of scientists in the public eye. Who's going to listen to us now? It's a sorry state of affairs.
So there it is, my opinion on this whole controversy. Honestly, I don't think it'll have much of an effect outside of further polarizing both sides. The crazies will simply be crazier, on both sides of the issue. Those who can make money off this situation will. And in the end we'll still be spinning our wheels arguing about who's right instead of doing something useful. Such is the human condition.
