Last week, The New York Times published an article titled, “Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute.” This article investigated the recent global warming scandal in England: unidentified persons had hacked into the server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of Easy Anglia, a British university. Upon access, they posted online copies of e-mails and documents that they found pertaining to climate change research from 1996 to 2009. These materials are significant because some of the e-mails included disdainful comments and images about global warming skeptics, and discussions over whether certain scientific global warming data should be released. For instance, one e-mail contained a photo collage of climate skeptics on an ice flow. Another, from Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” These e-mails not only illustrated the scientists’ gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations, but their conceit and deceptiveness. Professor Phil Jones, the Director of the Climatic Research Unit, wrote that he had used a “trick to hide the decline” in temperatures.

In my opinion, while nothing can be said about the scientists insulting global warming skeptics, they should not have been involved in fabricating scientific data and research. For instance, scientists have neither mentioned nor intentionally hid the fact that though tree rings and thermometers both show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, tree rings now no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so. The ambiguity demonstrated by the British scientists by hiding these trivial matters only undermines the scientists’ stance rather than helps it. Unfortunately, global warming skeptics are now using these disclosed documents as examples of how climate scientists are unreliable and conspiring to overstate human influence on climate change. Skeptics are now abusing this incident to raise questions about the reliability of scientists and the actions of some sciences. It is sad that the scientists are basically giving the skeptics a free ride to undermine everything about global warming.

Environmental organizations are now responding to the uproar over their fabrications, and frankly, they deserve the scrutiny. Efforts are now being made to reassure the public that the incident does not invalidate climate change and should not halt the green movement. A spokesman for the Met Office, a UK agency who works with the Climate Research Unit, said, “The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use the peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be.” Others argue the skeptics took words out of context. Michael Mann, the director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center said the doubters are trying “to make something trivial appear nefarious.”

One could argue that this incident is a lot like the Watergate scandal. Though President Nixon denied having anything to do with the break-in, the fact that he was found to be involved in its cover-up ultimately led to his resignation. Had President Nixon not done so, history would have taken a quite different route. Likewise, the scientists should not have fabricated evidence. People whom the public trust should not be afraid to share facts with the public regardless of their content. Had scientists openly talked about unpredicted research data with the public, they would have never been put in this precarious situation, and global warming skeptics would never have been able to criticize “Climategate.”