El editorial del Wall Street Journal empieza citando palabras textuales de Phil Jones, director del Climate Research Unit y uno de los principales científicos del cambio climático, en un correo de 2005:
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
El diario ha intentado contactar con los científicos que firman los correos filtrados. Algunos han pedido hablar primero con sus abogados, otros han contestado con amenazas legales o invectivas, y aún otros han dicho que no tenían nada que comentar. Los que han respondido se han limitado a decir que los correos no revelan más que discrepancias triviales sobre datos y procedimientos.
Según el WSJ, las evasivas apuntan a una importante conclusión: los científicos afectados no sienten que el público tenga derecho a conocer los datos que sirven de base a sus predicciones climáticas, a pesar de que los gobiernos alrededor del mundo están gastando ingentes sumas de dinero público como respuesta a esas predicciones.
El editorial añade:
For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.
No os perdáis el seguimiento que está haciendo Luis Gómez en Desde el Exilio, seleccionando y traducciendo los correos más comprometedores.
George Monbiot, uno de los principales activistas del movimiento ecologista, admite en The Guardian que las filtraciones son un golpe duro y revelan actitudes preocupantes por parte de varios científicos:
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
Monbiot destaca, no obstante, que se necesita mucho más para desmontar la teoría del cambio climático y probar la existencia de una conspiración ecologista.
(HT: Libertad Digital)
