At the blog MasterResource I explained why–contrary to some of the dismissive and sarcastic defenses of the CRU emails–”Climategate” really should reduce the confidence that non-experts place in the IPCC’s models and alarmist warnings. I gather that many readers of this blog will think my conclusion is obvious, but I felt compelled to write this post since so many smart people were saying “nothing to see here.”
Here’s an excerpt:
No, the true debate has been among practicing climatologists, with some arguing that the global climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations may be well below the IPCC AR4′s reported range of 2C – 4.5C. If these “skeptics”-such as Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, and Roy Spencer-are right, then the case for large-scale government intervention to penalize carbon emissions is considerably weakened.
In this context, the evidence brought to light by “Climategate” may be very significant, because it reaffirms the chinks in the IPCC armor that the educated skeptics have been pointing out for years. It’s true, an email from Phil Jones by itself doesn’t make Richard Lindzen right or wrong, but when policymakers need to decide which scientific experts they can trust, then the CRU emails are very relevant.