Given the furor surrounding the pirated e-mails coming out of the University of East Anglia, what's the real takeaway lesson? Does it say more about the way renowned climate scientists work, or how climate skeptics have operated in shaping the public debate over global warming?
Washington Post Editor on November 23, 2009 12:55 PM
The scientists at the University of East Anglia who sought to curtail opposing thoughts were acting out of selfish reasons, seeking to justify their own positions on climate change. The same can be said for those who have used this forum to make personal attacks on members of this Planet Panel.
Posted by Rick Edmund, on November 26, 2009 9:19 AM
The fulminations of climate skeptics in the wake of the release of electronic documents stolen from the University of east Anglia demonstrates more clearly than ever that the skeptics don't understand either climate science or the scientific method.
Posted by David F. Hales, on November 25, 2009 12:43 PM
This little tempest should remind us that like the rest of us, renowned climate scientists are people with a normal quotient of character failings. Albert Einstein reportedly treated his first wife badly, but that certainly has no bearing on the genius of his scientific achievements -- any more than Pablo Picasso's private behavior devalues his astonishing art.
Posted by Robert J. Shapiro, on November 24, 2009 11:48 AM
Passion is a good thing when it drives people to work hard and overcome obstacles. Passion is a bad thing when it causes you to close your mind to other points of view, no matter how strongly you disagree with them.
Posted by Pam Faggert, on November 24, 2009 11:27 AM
The widely posted Climate Research Unit e-mails are being misrepresented by climate change deniers as evidence that the science supporting human-caused global warming is fatally flawed or, worse, corrupt.
Posted by Donald F. Boesch, on November 24, 2009 7:35 AM