Tue, 24 Nov 2009 9:24p.m.
Fitting scant evidence around a pre-held, unalterable conviction is nothing new for the denialist lobby, but the collective orgasm they've had over this overblown controversy is nothing short of alarming.

For those unawares, 'Climategate' concerns a series of emails and documents illegally obtained by computer hackers from the servers of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, and posted on the internet. Climate change sceptics say the documents reveal that climate change – manmade or otherwise – is a massive hoax, perpetrated by global elites for their own devious purposes.

That, or yes, climate change is real, but it has nothing to do with the millions of tonnes of crap humanity pumps into the atmosphere every day. Or something else, who knows anymore?

Anyway, now, where to start? Perhaps with pointing out the credibility-destroying hypocrisy of the hackers themselves. The university has confirmed the emails and documents leaked onto the web appear genuine, but that not everything that was accessed has been released.

In fact, the university put out a statement, saying: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way." The CRU said emails purporting to show scientists engaging in unethical or misleading behaviour had been taken out of context, and merely represented an "honest exchange of ideas".

Call it the Hone Harawira defence if you want, but it's certainly a believable one.

Putting it simply, the hackers have been very picky about what they've released and what they haven't – which is precisely what they accuse climate scientists of doing. It reeks of hypocrisy, and without any proof to the contrary, the benefit of the doubt has to go with scientists. You know, those guys most rational people would hold in slightly higher esteem than computer hackers.

Website RealClimate.org, whose tagline is 'Climate science from climate scientists', points out just how wrong climate change sceptics have been to jump on 'gotcha' quotes, such as this one from scientist Phil Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” I won't detail the full explanation here, but you can read it for yourself on their site – it really does clear up any confusion, and dare I say it, shows the sceptics who the real scientists are (Hint: the guys and gals in white coats, not the guys in tinfoil hats).

Also what is missing from the stolen documents is a single reference to any kind of hoax or conspiracy – at all. The only conclusion that can be made from this is that despite hacking into one of the world's premier climate research organisations and cherry-picking the best bits they could find to back up their beliefs, the hackers could not find one private email in the past 13 years where a dodgy scientist, speaking in confidence to a fellow conspirator, mentioned the fact what they were doing was like something out of an Austin Powers movie.

As for the mythical "global cooling" debate that's excited sceptics of late, an Associated Press study released in October of this year showed that it's complete bunk. The argument sceptics use is that the world's average temperature is yet to beat 1998, which was over a decade ago – so therefore, global warming is not happening.

Statisticians – not climate scientists – were given data showing changes in the world's temperature over the last decade or so, but not told what the data represented. Not one found any trending decrease, at all. In fact, they found the numbers – and therefore, the temperatures – have, on the whole, been increasing.

1998 was an unusually hot year, something author Malcolm Gladwell might call an outlier – high, yes, but completely within statistical deviation. Professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina John Grego told the AP: "The [cooling] trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999."

What I also don't understand is how some sceptics can claim that yes, okay, climate change is happening – but humans are not contributing to it... then in the next breath, pull out arguments like the one the AP debunked. I mean, you can't have it both ways, guys. It's either happening or it isn't.

It's not like Wanganui's quantum letter 'H'.

Perhaps when the denialists actually begin to understand the science behind climate change, they'll be taken seriously – but only because they'll finally be agreeing with the rest of us.