| December 2, 2009 |  |
More Scientists Join Call to Reject Stolen E-Mail Claims
WASHINGTON (December 2, 2009) – James McCarthy, a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, sent a letter (pdf) to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) today stressing that e-mails stolen from climate scientists have no bearing on our overall understanding of climate science.
Dr. McCarthy is board chair of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The letter reads in full: "The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process. The body of evidence that human activity is prominent agent in global warming is overwhelming. The content of these a few personal emails has no impact what-so-ever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming."
Similarly, a Nature editorial published today states there is no reason for its editors to revisit papers submitted by scientists whose e-mails were stolen. The American Meteorological Society also recently stated the e-mails gave them no reason to revisit its conclusion that human activity is driving climate change.
According to UCS, the evidence for climate change is incontrovertible. While it is still not clear any wrongdoing actually took place, the group said, scientists in general should do more to address concerns about openness.
For more comments on the stolen e-mails, climate blogger Josh Nelson has assembled a compilation of reactions from scientists and other groups to the stolen e-mails.
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
