The Nail in the Coffin

I haven't posted about the "Climategate" email thingy because frankly "it's a non-starter." (Actually you should read that link because it discusses the story more in depth). I've decided to post on it via request by one of my readers, I do have one, and because I found a satisfactory response to "Climategate" that should be the one that our "news" outlets take considering the nature of how the emails came to light, a.k.a., theft.

Here's a piece in full (because it's short) from my favorite Russian doomer, Dmitry Orlov:

I have been trying not to write this blog post, but in the end I couldn't resist. I know full well that I should just ignore this Climategate nonsense, but since what I have to say is quite short, I'll just go ahead and say it.

Update: For the past hour or so I've been busy rejecting comments that attempt to draw a false analogy between Climategate and Watergate. Um, no, this one is about science. Unlike administration or politics, science is done in the open. Every significant finding is published and subject to peer review. By definition, then, there is never anything important to "leak." Incorrect results and invalid theories are disproved and invalidated as a matter of course, ideally prior to publication, because scientists are skeptics who jealously guard their reputations. You are supposed to already know all this, so if any of it is still unclear to you, then please be sure to read point 4 below, and, unless you also happen to be cute, furry and affectionate, there will be no cat food for you.

1. The UEA emails were stolen. Data theft is a criminal activity. Use of stolen data is a criminal activity as well. People who get paid for publishing articles that are based on stolen data are dealing in stolen goods. This is no different from selling a house that you built using stolen materials.

2. Smearing some one's reputation based on lies is called libel. To defend oneself against the charge of libel, one generally has to present evidence to prove that one's statements are in fact true. Stolen data is not admissible as evidence.

3. To avoid charges of complicity, we should all try to avoid aiding and abetting people who do such things. For instance, it seems like a bad idea to let them use public airwaves and to publish their materials. Barring them would not constitute censorship, since one has to have the legal right to do something before it can be censored. This is no different from barring stolen goods from a marketplace.

4. Finally, there are the people who listen to those who are making libelous claims based on stolen data, thinking that they are valid points. This is, of course, pretty stupid of them. But how tolerant we should be of stupidity is an individual choice. For instance, my cat has no concept of cause and effect, which makes her do some really stupid things, but on the other hand she is cute and furry and affectionate. But I am glad that she doesn't have an opinion on climate change, because that might have made things a bit awkward between us.

These reasons should just about kill "Climategate" as a news story or even more importantly, as a "great unearthing" of some devious scientific conspiracy. Ethically they details of the emails are not reportable and scientifically the claims inside the emails are of nothing that hasn't been discussed in greater depth and with better documentation elsewhere.