ClimateGate: Facts Are Important Things

This week, diplomats from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen for the global climate change summit–an event that has been marked by controversy in the wake of the “climate-gate” scandal that has recently and rightly gained significant international media attention.

This scandal has provoked many questions that I believe deserve answers. Among other things, it would seem that information relating to climate change research may have been held back from the public– and key decision-makers, too. This could of course impact the appropriateness and effectiveness of policy that the US, and indeed world leaders, might pursue. Before moving forward, given the potentially significant economic consequences associated with some of the steps under consideration, I personally think it is important to get a handle on all the facts, whether they be good, bad or ugly.

Unfortunately, Barbara Boxer and her colleagues in Congress who seek to pass major cap and trade legislation that analysis shows is a job killer take a different view–and have different questions they want answered.

Boxer, specifically, has been more concerned about legal issues surrounding how this information became publicly available than she has been in the information itself. I am not in any way arguing that criminal activity should be ignored. I believe an investigation as to how this information became public is warranted. However, I think it is equally crucial that we also fully examine and consider the substance of information that has been brought to light already.

Ironically, Barbara Boxer has been happy to advocate for the publication of information relating to the climate change debate in the past. In July of last year, she demanded the public release of internal EPA data on climate change which she said constituted “the strongest language I have ever seen or that you have ever seen” substantiating that man-made global warming was occurring and constituted a major threat. At the time she said such data “belongs in the hands of the American people.” She also called on EPA officials to “release every document” related to an email at the center of the controversy, and blasted the Bush administration for “suppressing information.”

So, what is different here? Well, mainly, the fact that at that time, the information in question supported her position on this issue. Now that we’re talking about information that may not support that conclusion, she isn’t interested in making sure the facts are available to the American people.

In business and in my own life I try to make decisions and solve problems based on all of the available facts. Ultimately, an uninformed decision is likely to be a bad one, and that is why I find Barbara Boxer’s response to this situation so unacceptable.

We deserve better from our elected officials, just as we do scientists researching important matters affecting lives and our economy. We deserve to know the truth – and to know our representatives in Washington, DC, will prioritize that, even when it is politically inconvenient for them.