jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (33 posts)

Scientists worked with 'rigor and honesty' - Climategate Investigation

  1. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    From CNN -
    London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.

    The scandal fueled skepticism about the case for global warming just weeks before world leaders met to agree a global deal on climate change at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last December.

    The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    "We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," Russell said.

    1. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the THIRD independent investigation that has found no evidence of wrongdoing?

      Unfortunately, the damage is likely already done (which I'm sure was the point in the first place).

    2. profile image55
      fionadeogposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      :-) joke over the net:

      in order to secure a research fund, we copy, paste and modify a little bit like the commas, full stops and the name of the species in the experiment to make it look novel. Thank you. We are proud to be nominated in an internal award.

  2. livelonger profile image90
    livelongerposted 7 years ago

    Good stuff. Trying to "sex up" findings doesn't necessarily mean the findings themselves were fabricated. Glad the scientists were vindicated.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What's sad is that we will continue to be hounded by wingnuts who will declare that Climategate 'proved' global warming is false. None of them seem to have read tis post,  because they probably don't know what 'rigor' means and absolutely don't have a clue what honesty is.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image80
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Uh oh, you said "wingnuts."  smile

        But seriously, it will be interesting to see how this is spun by skeptics of global climate change.

      2. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Honestly?

      3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        They're waiting for Glenn Beck's show to know how to respond. smile

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Who is Glenn Beck?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry, you may be one of those who refers to him as "Lord and Savior".

            1. Mark Knowles profile image59
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Can I get a "Jesus says god will deal with the climate in His own good time!!!" ?

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                No, because that would mean you agree with the heathen scientists that there is in fact a problem.

            2. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Who is Lord and Savior?

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Ask Brenda.

                If you ask me "who's Brenda..." mad

                1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                  Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok, I will refrain.

      4. IntimatEvolution profile image80
        IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Brilliant post.

  3. Ralph Deeds profile image74
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago
  4. Reality Bytes profile image89
    Reality Bytesposted 7 years ago

    Now we all agree, This was not Britbart's fault?

  5. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    I don't guess I have to even state what I think in regards to this matter.


    But I will anyway.

    Science and it's lies have become old.

    They lie as much as the organized religions they bitch about.

  6. Flightkeeper profile image72
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    Rigor. As in Rigor Mortis? As in Climate Change as an issue is dead? Hail and Hallelujah!!!

    I see global warming all around me. lol lol

    Now why don't I believe a bunch of scientists who heads a panel investigating Climategate but it was commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia (UEA), the same university whose climate department was under investigation, not believable? Hmm?

    Can someone say whitewash?

    http://www.twolia.com/blogs/zoboxrox/files/2009/09/shark-global-warming1.jpg

  7. Evan G Rogers profile image78
    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

    i met with the state climatologist of Ohio, and I was asking him about the "climategate" issue.

    He pretty much just said "the e-mail looked bad, but if you went through and looked at it all, they didn't really do anything too horrible"

    He has said about climate change "things are getting a bit warmer, but not as warm as our models would suggest. It's also pretty clear that humans ARE responsible for at least SOME of the warming."

    so... there ya go...

    another opinion.

  8. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    I like the oft ignored and never discussed memo from the Goddard Space Sciences Center at NASA back in ... around 05/06... that stated their numbers for the base model that all the climate models have spun off from, were faulty.

    Which in turns makes the models faulty.

    But never have any of them revised their works.

    I will try to find it online.

    It was quite an interesting read.

  9. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago

    Which email? Because every time Nasa gets something wrong (usually a very insignificant error) they correct for it. 

    Of course the corrections don't stop the propagandists from spinning that one error over and over and over again as the complete downfall of 150 years of climatology.

    1. TMMason profile image63
      TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It was for correction will. To correct the faulty #s in the climate models. I will look for it later. i just got dressed and gota go... drs today, and then cardiologists... so i will look for it later.

      I wasn't downing NASA for correcting themselves.

      I was pointing out it is ofter ingnored. I am a fervent supporter of NASA, and it burns me to no end the Dems want to get rid of it.

      See ya in a few.

  10. Daniel Carter profile image87
    Daniel Carterposted 7 years ago

    It seems to me that the information about Global Warming has spun out of control, and is now being reigned back in. It's much like the political commentators on TV. We get a LOT of information, but we have to receive it with a lot of added opinion and twist. Spinning the information is what makes money. Hence, Gore's little flick. Spin, spin, spin.

    The facts are probably somewhere in the middle of all this. It's not all what is claimed, nor is it non-existent (Global Warming). There is some, but not nearly as catastrophic as originally we were led to believe.

    The information age is only one-upped by the opinion age.

  11. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 7 years ago

    The thing about global warming is that it could be very very bad.  Climate feedbacks are not really fully understood but they could lead to a rapid and catastrophic shift in global climate. 

    The worst case scenario is very very bad -  basically the end of human civilization.  The best case scenario is that the 150 years of climate science is completely wrong and nothing will change.

    The most likely scenario is somewhere in the middle of those extremes.

    The smart thing to do is plan for the most likely scenario.

  12. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    The smart thing to do is plan for the worst case scenario, since the "most likely" scenario could end up being too little.

    Without the gloom and doom impetus of "global warming" we -- especially Americans -- would have no incentive to change our ways.

    Even if the climate is changing at a slower rate than predicted, is it not prudent to adopt changes that will preserve the earth's natural resources and keep the earth habitable longer than 150 years? I mean, I know none of US will be around then, but still. How selfish can we be???

  13. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    From the Christian Science Monitor - not a liberal rag..

    "By Nancy Atkinson, UniverseToday / July 19, 2010

    Was last month warm where you live? If so, you weren't alone. According measurements taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) June 2010 was the hottest June on record worldwide. But this is not a new trend, at least for this year. March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record. This was also the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985."

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This just goes to show that being wrong is a universal thing.

  14. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    Suppose a person was drowning by his own error - in a pool or at the beach. Clearly it's his own fault, but liberals and conservatives agree you would still save that person (or try).

    Suppose the person is drowning in a flash flood - not his fault - an act of nature. Liberals would want to save that person - but conservatives would opt to let the person drown. Why?

    As the evidence of global warming has become overwhelming,  the new defense by denyers is that it's not the fault of man - and therefore man should do NOTHING. The abusrdity of doing nothing regardless of culpability is obvious if you think - even a little. 

    But that's asking a lot of conservatives.

    What's really tragic is that we will all 'drown'.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Suppose the person is drowning in a flash flood - not his fault - an act of nature. Liberals would want to save that person - but conservatives would opt to let the person drown. Why?"

      Did you think this up all on your own?

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Reading comprehension is something you are working on and we will all be patinet with you. The conclusion might have been written just for you -

        "The abusrdity of doing nothing regardless of culpability is obvious if you think - even a little. 

        But that's asking a lot of conservatives."

  15. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Military Analysts Say Global Warming Is A Threat To Our Security
    Jay Yarow | Aug. 8, 2009, 7:35 PM |


    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/military … z0v7Hlxa7I
    *****

    Also heard on the radio today that due to WARMING climate and beetles, a whole forest in Yosemite is being decimated.

    Polar caps are melting...no doubt about that.
    I geuss they melt from the cold?

 
working