A recent op-ed Greg submitted to the Wall Street Journal:

I am writing in response to the op-ed from Patrick Michaels published in the WSJ July 12th asserting that the subsequent investigations into the email scandal of the University of East Anglia were an inside spin campaign titled as a “Whitewash” by “global warming alarmists”.

This article is nothing but an excuse to drum the same emails out again and continue the Journal’s history of publishing dozens of editorials and op-eds depicting climate science as in some manner unscrupulous, unreliable, or under widespread suspicion.  I find the Journal’s record on the issue to be disturbingly distorted, one-sided and not at all representative of the actual scientific evidence of climate change and its causes.

While op-ed pieces need not adhere to the standards of journalistic integrity, the Journal as a whole should, and it has a responsibility to its readers and the public in general to be impartial and accurate.

I have viewed many of the Climategate emails myself as well as reading the reports of the subsequent investigations.  There are two things we need to recognize as separate in looking at any alleged wrong-doings. The first is the degree to which the allegations show personal shortcomings, and the second is the degree to which they undermine the scientific findings.

I concede that in looking at most excerpted emails from Phil Jones it is reasonable to conclude that his conviction on the issue of climate change has prompted him to take an adversarial stance to contrary viewpoints and as such make suggestions that I personally find inappropriate.

What has been asked in response is to what degree did Dr. Jones’ personal feelings affect the impartiality of his findings?  What the three subsequent investigations have found is that his personal feelings did not affect the scientific findings.  All three investigations have shown that the scientific conclusions in question have been corroborated by numerous other scientists and agencies.  The man may have been shown to be impartial, the scientific conclusions have not.

For the readers unfamiliar, some of the emails deal with the CRU and Hadley Centers’ instrumental record of temperature for the last 150 years that show a considerable increase in temperature over that period.  If you don’t like the instrumental record, fine, let’s throw it out! 

NASA has its own record over that period that adhears to its own set of standards and techniques that shows virtually the same trend.  Or… How about we look at truly impartial indicators like the 40% reduction in ice in the arctic in the last 40 years, or the migratory paths of dozens of North American birds which are shifting Northward at an unprecedented rate.  Ice and birds did not read Dr. Jones’ emails, nor the WSJ for that matter.  Ice melted and birds changed because the Earth is warming. You do not need the CRU temperature record to show you this.

Other data in question has to do with temperature records over the period of time modern humans developed.  It shows that we are just now leaving the range of natural variability.  Separate studies, not related to the scientist involved in Climategate, show us that the recent warming we have observed is consistent with the amount of Greenhouse Gases we have added to the atmosphere. We are observing changes in the Earth’s climate at unprecedented rates and man’s burning of fossil fuels are driving the changes we see.  That’s not opinion, that’s fact!

The very nature of the scientific method and peer-review is to separate individual impartiality from scientific findings.  Mr. Michaels’ op-ed again echoes the misguided notion from the blogoshpere that the emails regarding Climate Research’s 2003 publishing of the Soon/ Baliunas article was part of a campaign to cover-up contrary science.  First of all the objections to the two articles that Climate Research published were because the conclusions were not supported by scientific evidence, not because they were damning to current theories! 

Secondly, the outcry over the publishing of these unsupported findings was hardly limited to Mann and Jones.  There was an outcry across the climate research community.  The editor for Climate Research ultimately stepped down in the wake of this not because the journal published contrary science, but because it published findings that were not accurate or substantiated.

We are witnessing changes to the natural world in precipitation, droughts, floods, rises in sea level, loss of ice, changes to agriculture, more frequent and severe storms and species loss.   These are just a few of the many effects that are consistent with what we expect to see with global warming and the resultant climate change. 

In response we will also see changes in our transportation, energy and industry out of necessity.  The only remaining question is when will these changes manifest, and who will be the big winners and losers?

Mr. Michaels does not include the details of his past work but I’m sorry to hear he is having such a hard time getting his papers published (not really).  Perhaps instead of damning the whole of the climate science community as an elaborate network of co-conspirators hell bent on blocking him, he could actually create a work that stands up to peer-review scrutiny.

Mr. Mattison is a journalist and producer of the award winning series Green By Design TV and Newlygreens.com.