ClimateGate Scandal One Year Later, Many Questions Remain

ClimateGate Scandal One Year Later, Many Questions Remain

November 18, 2010

Washington, D.C., November 18, 2010 — Friday, November 19th marks the first anniversary of the release of the e-mails and files from the University of East Anglia in England that came to be known as ClimateGate. CEI global warming and energy experts have followed ClimateGate closely and observe that the beneficial effects of the scientific fraud scandal have not yet penetrated the political or scientific establishments.

“ClimateGate confirmed to the general public what many climate skeptics have suspected or known for years, namely that the scientific basis of global warming alarmism is based on the flimsy, dubious, and discredited claims of a small group of scientists working closely together to push their political agenda,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center on Energy and Environment Policy.

“Specifically, ClimateGate revealed that the historical temperature datasets have been manipulated over the years to make the 1930s appear cooler and recent decades appear warmer,” said Ebell. “Unfortunately, the scientific and academic bodies have closed ranks to whitewash the ClimateGate scandal,” Ebell said. “They have been unwilling to see what is now in plain view. They expect the public to continue to support energy-rationing policies that will cost tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars on the basis that this handful of alarmist scientists in England and the United States can be trusted.”

“Climategate confirmed the suspicions most Americans have about global warming,” added Ben Lieberman, a CEI Adjunct Fellow and energy policy expert. “And those suspicions were on display November 2 as many congressional supporters of cap and trade got the boot.”

“The ClimateGate scandal has not yet run its course,” added Ebell. "What is clearly needed now is a thorough audit by independent statisticians and scientists of the data and methodologies underlying the major scientific claims underlying global warming alarmism,” Ebell concluded.