Scientists worked with 'rigor and honesty' - Climategate Investigation

1. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 14 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.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      kerrygposted 14 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).

      replyreport
   2. 54

      fionadeogposted 14 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.

      replyreport
2. 90

   livelongerposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 14 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.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Uh oh, you said "wingnuts." 
         
         But seriously, it will be interesting to see how this is spun by skeptics of global climate change.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Honestly?

         replyreport
      3. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Who is Glenn Beck?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
               2. 60

                  Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Who is Lord and Savior?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Ok, I will refrain.

                        replyreport
      4. 74

         IntimatEvolutionposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Brilliant post.

         replyreport
3. 66

   Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

   Here's the NYT take on the report--
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/scien … ef=science

   replyreport
4. 74

   Reality Bytesposted 14 years ago

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

   replyreport
5. 59

   TMMasonposted 14 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.

   replyreport
6. 66

   Flightkeeperposted 14 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.
   
   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?
   
   

   replyreport
7. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 14 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.

   replyreport
8. 59

   TMMasonposted 14 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.

   replyreport
9. 60

   William R. Wilsonposted 14 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.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      TMMasonposted 14 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.

      replyreport
10. 61

    Daniel Carterposted 14 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.

    replyreport
11. 60

    William R. Wilsonposted 14 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.

    replyreport
12. 77

    Mighty Momposted 14 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???

    replyreport
13. 60

    Doug Hughesposted 14 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."

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

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

       replyreport
14. 60

    Doug Hughesposted 14 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'.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Jim Hunterposted 14 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?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Doug Hughesposted 14 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."

          replyreport
15. 82

    lovemychrisposted 14 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?

    replyreport