In November 2009, just prior to the Copenhagen climate conference, hackers broke into the e-mail files of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and stole over a thousand e-mails that had been exchanged among the scientists at IPCC for years. Thus began a campaign by the skeptics to discredit the scientists and the science on which the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report was based. It was a campaign that some have likened to a street fight.

Since the Copenhagen conference, the stolen e-mails have been thoroughly examined by anti-climate change individuals and groups and supportive scientists searching for undeniable proof that the IPCC had fudged the data and engaged in a cover up. The e-mails have also been examined by scientists worldwide with the objective of finding fault with the data. No such luck.

The Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank with offices across Canada studied the IPCC e-mails and the related IPCC report and came to the conclusion that "the science of climate change remains very sound and defensible," the conclusion reached by everyone who has studied the material and reported.

The IPCC report has been reviewed by a British Scientific Panel of experts led by Lord Oxburg of England; a group of scientists in Canada who prepared briefing notes for Environment Minister Jim Prentice to be used during the Copenhagen conference negotiations; 1,700 scientists in the United Kingdom; 250 scientists in the United States; and Nature, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In every case the reviewers found no evidence of scientific malpractice and expressed confidence in the observational science for global warming. Perhaps the statement made by Nature magazine sums the situation up best. "The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real-or that human activities are most certainly the cause."

Scientists at IPCC did admit that the projected rate of glacial melting in the Himalayas was wrong. The glaciers are melting but not as quickly as forecast. The institute also made it clear that erroneous information on the percentage of the Netherlands that is below sea level came from the Dutch government offices.

Attempts to discredit the IPCC have failed miserably. The claims that the science that backs up global warming is without substance cannot be proven.

However, the skeptics must be given credit for causing the scientific community to examine the way it shares information on climate change with the public. The scientists have agreed that they must be more open and transparent.

Canadians can take some solace in an encouraging action that took place on April 14 when Members of Parliament in opposition voted to support strong action on climate change in the Climate Change Accountability Act introduced by a New Democratic Party member. Bill C-311 sets a science-based greenhouse gas emission target for Canada and requires the government to draft a plan and implement regulations to meet the target. The bill will proceed to a final vote later this spring.

In an additional resolution, the Liberals are calling for a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies and funding to support developing countries in their efforts to address climate change issues. A strong climate policy would erase Canada's image as a procrastinator on climate change. It would also give Canadians the assurance they need that reducing their greenhouse gas emissions is worthwhile.

A review conducted by a British Scientific Assessment Panel of experts led by Lord Oxburgh saw "no evidence of scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climate Research Unit (CRU)"

In Canada a group of scientists who prepared briefing notes for Environment Minister Jim Prentice viewed the IPCC report "as the most comprehensive and rigorous source of scientific information for climate change negotiations." Minister Prentice was to have used the information during negotiations at the Copenhagen climate conference but Canada chose to take a do nothing stance.

In the United Kingdom, 1,700 scientists released a joint statement that said they had the utmost confidence in the observational science for global warming produced by the IPCC. In the United States 250 scientists uphold the credibility of the science research of the IPCC. They say, "warming of the climate is unequivocal."

Nature, a peer-reviewed scientific journal stated, "the core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real-or that human activities are almost certainly the cause."