December 3, 2009
As for the larger issue, supporters of action on global warming might be well-advised, for the sake of argument, to concede more than they should. OK, they might say to the deniers, we'll treat all of CRU's data as irrevocably compromised, and never refer to it again. From now on, we'll rely only on information from NASA, NOAA, and the Japan Meteorological Agency, as well as the affirmation of the UN's Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus that warming is happening would be unaffected.
Concerning those climate change research emails that were leaked last week, TPM provides a much needed summary of what it means in context, which organisation's data is actually compromised, and clarifies that (not surprisingly) plenty of separately gathered data is still valid.
It's still a deeply embarrassing incident to anyone that argues for action on climate change, and in general to anyone that values the scientific process of decision making. Ultimately science is resilient to this; if data is compromised, you throw it away and you do the research again.
It's unfortunate that there's a partisan political storm with all the shouting and gnashing of teeth and the shouting, but patience reaps reward, and the TalkingPointsMemo summary provides a very balanced and accessible citation. Via: tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com.