“There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” – Andrew Dessler, “Climate E-Mails Cloud the Debate,” December 10, 2009.

It has been 11 years since the intellectual scandal erupted called Climategate. Each anniversary inspires recollections and regurgitation of salient quotations. These quotations speak for themselves; attempts of climate alarmists to parse the words and meaning distracts from what was said in real-time private conversations.

And the scandal got worse after the fact when, according to Paul Stephens, “virtually the entire climate science community tried to pretend that nothing was wrong.”

Fred Pearce’s The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming (2010) was a mainstream look at the scandal. Michael Mann is the bad actor, despite his I-am-the-victim take in his account, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (2012).…

“Thanks Rob Bradley for coming here to confirm Exxon’s (and by extension your) lies.” (Gunnar Schade, Texas A&M University)

“Enron was the bad firm; ExxonMobil under Lee Raymond was the good firm. Energy affordability matters! Happy to debate this with you at Texas A&M!” (Bradley, below)

On social media, Goran Janjic, self-described “Head of Sustainability | Business Strategist | Managing Director | Corporate and Government Affairs Leader,” shared a recent article (Tracing Big Oil’s PR War to Delay Action on Climate Change” Harvard Gazette) and stated:

ExxonMobil has misled the public about #climatechange by telling the public one thing and then saying and doing the opposite behind closed doors.

The latest work shows that while their tactics have evolved from outright, blatant climate denial to more subtle forms of #lobbying and propaganda, their end goal remains the same.

“Koonin is … not REMOTELY qualified to dispute the conclusions of thousands of working scientists…. Koonin will say whatever he is paid to say.” (Paul Bryan, below)

“Bryan offers only  ad hominem attacks. Sadly, so characteristic of the public conversation about climate science.  If he’d made a specific criticism of what I said about climate science, it might be worth responding to.” (Koonin, below)

Emotions run high in the climate debate between the ‘settled-science’ alarmists and cautious, data-driven critics. There is every reason to listen and learn in a quite unsettled area (climate models?) and not be crude and offensive, much less engage in angry hate speech.

“Fossil fuel troll” … “You are simply shilling for the addiction model of energy and the dealers that profit from it” … “Your arguments are tired, old, oft-debunked pages from the Denier’s Playbook.…

“But in the nearly 4,000-page study, skeptics note, the term “low confidence” — jargon for findings where there is conflicting evidence — occurs almost 1,400 times. The term “likely” — which could mean a degree of certainty as low as 66 percent — appears thousands of times, including as to whether major hurricanes have increased in frequency since the 1980s.” (Jim Osborne, Houston Chronicle below)

The title of the featured story is loaded. The interview started from the premise of climate alarmism. But one Jim Walzel, 84 years young, did just fine in making the point that climate science is quite unsettled and not indicative of crisis–just like previous scares he has witnessed in his long lifetime.

James Osborne’s “These skeptics believe in climate change. Why is it so hard to convince them catastrophe is coming?”…