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.
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).
:-) 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.
Good stuff. Trying to "sex up" findings doesn't necessarily mean the findings themselves were fabricated. Glad the scientists were vindicated.
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.
Uh oh, you said "wingnuts."
But seriously, it will be interesting to see how this is spun by skeptics of global climate change.
They're waiting for Glenn Beck's show to know how to respond.
Sorry, you may be one of those who refers to him as "Lord and Savior".
Can I get a "Jesus says god will deal with the climate in His own good time!!!" ?
Here's the NYT take on the report--
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/scien … ef=science
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
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."
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'.
"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?
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."
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?
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by Sychophantastic 6 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
by Holle Abee 4 years ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by Readmikenow 19 months ago
According to the Washington Examiner, None of the Apocalyptic predictions about the climate and the environment have come true. These are predictions that are recent and some that are decades old.Why are they always wrong?“Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental...
by Kenna McHugh 22 months ago
The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Changehttps://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/
by ahorseback 2 years ago
I New it ! The era of "political correctness" may finally be maturing into something slightly better ? NOAA having been instrumental in promoting the whole recent Global Warming alarmism may be returning to it's actual day jobof predicting the weather?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|