Newsweek has an article, which some on the blogosphere are maligning, entitled “The Truth about ‘Climategate’; Hacked e-mails have compromised scientists—but not the science itself.”  The author, Sharon Begley, a non-scientist, says she does

consider the science of anthropogenic global warming solid

Especially since the science—paleoclimate data, heating in the stratosphere relative to the troposphere, and other fingerprints of manmade climate change—is so compelling. Take the two papers by climate skeptics that triggered that “redefine the peer-reviewed literature” e-mail. Both were cited and discussed in the IPCC report

I’ve commented before about climategate, showing how much of the criticism of these emails is much ado about nothing, because information within the emails themselves shows that not all is as it appears to be by taking comments out of context.

Another observation is very important:  the scientific basis of atmospheric heating by carbon dioxide and other gases is very simple, easily understood by laymen when explained in the right way(s).  Ms. Begley needs to make sure she has a good handle on this basis, also.

Scientists and others who communicate about atmospheric change need to keep this explanation paramount, and repeat it over and over because it’s the best way to get people to under its importance. Talk about paleoclimate data, anthroprogenic warming, and so forth, is useful, but only after making sure the mechanisms are understood.

Hence this reminder of previous posts on the matter (here and here). Without this mechanism, earth would be an ice-ball. With too much heating caused by too many molecules, we move in the opposite direction, in a global gamble which we must address logically.