B, here is an excerpt from Wiki on the subject of the so-called "climatgate" emails. It shows that the emails were taken out of context and blown into something they were never intended to be. Almost ALL climate scientists are CERTAIN that climate change is real!
Climate change sceptics gained wide publicity in blogs and news media,[23] making allegations that the hacked emails showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data.[2] A few other commentators such as Roger A. Pielke[24] said that the evidence supported claims that dissenting scientific papers had been suppressed.[25] The Wall Street Journal reported the emails revealed apparent efforts to ensure the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and that the scientists withheld scientific data.[26]
An editorial in Nature stated that "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories." It said that emails showed harassment of researchers, often using Freedom of Information Act requests, but release of information had been hampered by national government restrictions on releasing the meteorological data researchers had been using. Nature considered that e-mails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming, or raised any substantive reasons for concern about the researchers' own papers.[27] The Telegraph reported that academics and climate change researchers dismissed the allegations, saying that nothing in the emails proved wrongdoing.[28] Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct. The AP said that the "[e]-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data."[29][30] In this context, John Tierney of the New York Times wrote: "these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause."[31]
Many commentators quoted one email referring to "Mike's Nature trick" which Jones used in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization, to deal with the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem "to hide the decline" that a particular proxy showed for modern temperatures after 1950, when measured temperatures were rising. These two phrases from the emails were also taken out of context by climate change sceptics including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin as though they referred to a decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[23] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by skeptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[31] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[32][33] The WMO graph would have been clearer with separate colours for instrumental and proxy data rather than merging them together, but this was an issue of the WMO requirements for their cover illustration. The graphs in subsequent IPCC reports clearly showed a separate line for the instrumental temperature record, and the 2001 IPCC report discussed the divergence problem as an important caveat to be borne in mind.[34]
Computer source code and a readme file included in the documents were the subject of discussion in the media.[35] The readme file indicated to some that "the coder, supremely frustrated with the poor quality of his data, simply creates some [data]."[36] John Graham-Cumming, a computer scientist interviewed by the BBC, said that the coding divulged was "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software."[37] In an editorial, Myles Allen wrote that contrary to its treatment by some commentators the code was entirely pe****gical and was not used for any research or analysis associated with the scientific publications showing the existence of global warming.[35]