Yes I know that title sounds like some kind of movie line but it works.  So we all know the global warming debate isn’t really about whether or not the planet is warming, this is an established fact.  The two debates around this fact are: how much will it impact us, and how much of it is the fault of people?

Climategate has a mix of both.  Because it has “gate” at the end of it you obviously know this is some kind of scandal.  Sure enough, someone hacked into some servers at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.  I don’t know much about climate research, but the CRU appears to be a big wig in the climate studies arena.

Thousands of files and emails were stolen and then immediately copied all over the internet.  This is done by the hacker so that the data cannot be recovered once stolen.  What has emerged from this is some disturbing conversations from climate scientists.  Some of the conversations speak of fudging numbers and questioning measurements that aren’t showing what many would call, the “green” agenda.  The NY Times has a mild review of the events, but you can Google “Climategate” and get hundreds of blogs and articles that are much more critical and quote the documents.

It should be noted that at the conclusion of Global Warming Week here on Weakonomics, I concluded that our impact on the world has been minimal and Mother Earth is a lot more resilient than “greenies” would have you believe.  However the point of this post is not to support my feelings or even say that the whole climate debate is bunk.  I want to talk to you about cynicism.  Sometimes it’s good to question science and not blindly trust published findings.

An organization like the Climate Research Unit has a vested interest in showing how people have impacted climate.  The more they prove this, the more publicity and funding they’ll get.  If they all of a sudden prove something like global warming doesn’t exist, they’ll probably put themselves out of business.  We are all human, and in a world of vanity and self-preservation, it’s no surprise that the CRU fudges numbers if they in fact did do it.  They do it because they have no incentive to publish data that doesn’t prove them right.

And what does all this have to do with money?  Thomas Friedman, of The World Is Flat and Hot, Flat, & Crowded, said that the next generation of business will be built around clean energy.  Government money, private investment, law, and business will all be impacted by research from organizations like the CRU.  If the research is faulty or tainted, then we may focus our energy on the wrong problems.

I stand by my original feelings about our impact on the planet.  Climategate does not change my stance fore or against the debate.  It’s a non-issue to me because I know this is going on all over the world.  Just make sure you don’t get sucked in to either side of the debate and know stuff like this can and will happen.  Be a cynic when you feel it’s appropriate; more importantly though, always be smart with your energy usage and always do the thing that best benefits your bottom line, AKA your wallet.

By The Weakonomist

The Weakonomist is the founder of Weakonomics. Clicking the picture of the puppy will tell you more about him. If you like what you're reading consider subscribing to the blog, following him on Twitter, and checking out the related posts below. Please consider a donation if you really enjoy Weakonomics. Also keep in mind that nothing I say can be construed as financial advice.

categories: business, environment