Stephanie Phillips, Associate Editor
Ideology: Environmentalist | Writing From: Portland, Oregon

Last week, hackers broke into the server for the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. They stole over 61 MB of files, including stored email communications between many prominent climate scientists around the world for the past 13 years, and leaked them on to the internet.

Over the past few days the conservative blogosphere has latched onto these emails, citing some of their content as “proof” that climate scientists are altering data to make it “look better” and as proof that they have intentionally hidden information to avoid the response of “crazy skeptics.”

The media has also latched onto this story. A quick Google search of “climate emails leaked” will lead you to an AP story titled “Hackers Leak Emails, Stoke Climate Debate,” a New York Times article titled,  “Hacked Email is New Fodder for Climate Dispute” and a Fox News headline story, “Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked Emails.”

Recognizing a good controversy, the majority of these stories draw attention to ideas of doubt about climate science that skeptics have raised. In doing so, they generally mention at least one of the emails that have been highlighted to prove deception. In one, a scientist writes about a “trick” he uses to “hide the decline” of temperature. In another, one scientist asks another to delete their previous correspondences. Another includes scientists openly mocking specific climate skeptics.

According to such skeptics, these emails directly indicate that climate scientists have been intentionally deceiving the public in order to further their grander agenda. They also add more fodder to the flame of uncertainty about climate change in general, due to the potential presence of foul play.

I have read dozens of these stories now in an attempt to be as objective as possible, but I just can’t shake my initial impression, something along the lines of:  “come on, really?”

Let’s be honest, this is just another example of the token strategy of many conservatives on climate change – instill a little bit of doubt and uncertainty and maybe the expensive liberal policies will be delayed just a little longer.

This is an old and tired fight, and I’m not going to defend the legitimacy of climate science again in this article. The wealth of data and consensus is more than enough proof of the consequences of burning fossil fuels.

In the case of these emails, there are very easy and logical ways to dismiss them as irrelevant without discussing their content, or discussing data specifics. In any server, analyzing 13 years of communications is bound to show some outlying controversial communications, expose some bad ethical calls, and will no doubt be misinterpreted by outsiders with a clear agenda. The majority of the stolen emails were totally benign.

Further, the idea that climate scientists have some sort of broader agenda is completely crazy. What agenda could possibly inspire them to attempt to convince people that we are facing catastrophe, and ask governments to spend huge sums of money on mitigation if there were serious doubt or scientific uncertainty? Embarrassment, perhaps? A desire for power? A secret anti-capitalist agenda? Doubtful.

The existence of a few questionable emails should not be the cause for international news. It is unfortunate that the words that were chosen were chosen, it is unfortunate that they were saved, and it is unfortunate that they were stolen. It has been an unnecessary setback that will probably only bolster the conservative cry of “uncertainty,” despite the very certain scientific community.

We all love a good conspiracy theory – sometimes it can help us cope with the horrors of the world. Some “radicals” love to believe that CEOs from the biggest corporations on the planet are sitting together behind closed doors deciding what wars will be fought for what resources and what people will be considered expendable in the name of profit. “Truthers” also love to believe that September 11th was organized by our government, in a calculated, intentioned fashion.

In the same way, I suppose many are eager to believe that climate scientists are deciding, behind the poor security of their servers, how climate data will impact the fate of the world. Perhaps this is just easier to stomach than the idea that our daily actions are impacting the future of humanity.

It is time to get over this however and consequently be done with this ridiculous debate about scientific legitimacy. We need to face hard realities and come to the table – liberals and conservatives alike – not with petty smear campaigns and conspiracy agendas, but with constructive ideas about how to solve this global problem.