- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I: IPCC WGI firmly stands behind its unique procedures and behind the scientific community and their collective work which has been, and continues to be, the basis of unbiased, open and transparent assessments of the current knowledge on the climate system and its changes
- The Met Office, NERC and the Royal Society: Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
- The American Meteorological Society: Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited
- The American Association for the Advancement of Science: The reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science
- The journal Nature: Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy
- Pew Center on Global Climate Change: The scientific consensus regarding human‐induced climate change is not likely to be affected. The data sets involved in the discussions have been reproduced independently by other scientists in other countries and yield similar conclusions.
- Union of Concerned Scientists: Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails
- New Scientist: Why there’s no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails
- Scientific American: Rumors of the demise of climate change have been much exaggerated
- Popular Mechanics: Do the potentially unethical acts implied by these e-mails invalidate the hypothesis that human output of greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, creates a serious risk of rapid climate change? No.
- More individual scientists’ statements on SwiftHack are aggregated here and here.
And of course the emails never have and never will impact the scientific basis of the reality of anthropogenic warming.
[h/t to DeSmogBlog for the IPCC statement]
[UPDATE: Via the comments, for more, see SwiftHack.com and CP under the "Hackergate" tag.]
[LATE UPDATE: More added as they come.]
Thanks for this. I wanted to make sure you knew that I’m collecting statements and links over at http://swifthack.com as well.
There have been a number of other public statements on the issue, today, including several at Copenhagen (IPCC’s Pachauri will address it specifically in his speech tomorrow), and just now by Lisa Jackson in the Finding press conference. See Climate Progress.
Jarraud’s (WMO) response to Webster and Revkin questions at about the 10 minute mark of this session:
http://www3.cop15.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15/templ/play.php?id_kongressmain=1&theme=cop15&id_kongresssession=2318
Andrew Watson’s (UEA) statement:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6948008.ece
There are two broad categories of response to this puffed-up issue. Instant outrage and rational analysis.
The first category was naturally out of the gate fastest, trying to occupy as much mind-space as possible.
The second category is now dissecting the various claims and assertions, finding that they are all evaporating when exposed to sunlight.
Guess which response will ultimately prove more satisfying to hold?
Pingback: Why climategate doesn’t matter to the science of global warming » Mind of Dan
It’s amusing and nice to see Little Green Footballs be so onside with this issue.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/tag/Global+Warming
Everyone, keep in mind that we need to do our own extensive writeups on this issue, and link like mad to reliable sources, so that reasonable people are more likely to find the good sources.
I’ve read the Pew review (LOL) and it is quite good, but I will still be posting my own posts linking various sources together. The more we all do this, the harder it is for the truth to be missed.
Pingback: greenfyre commented on A story of conversion: Global Warming Believer To Skeptic « Friends MAX
Pingback: greenfyre commented on Severe Blizzards and Climategate Make a Fool out of Al Gore « Friends MAX
Pingback: ClimateGate: HadCRUT subestima el calentamiento | Cambio climatico
Pingback: Why climategate doesn’t matter to the science of global warming | Mind of Dan