'Climategate' Investigation Clears U.S. Scientists

A new investigation into the 'Climategate' controversy has exonerated U.S. scientists of any wrongdoing. The probe was conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department's inspector general at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

In late 2009, thousands of emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. In the days following, allegations spread that the emails -- exchanges between the world's leading climate scientists, including some at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) -- revealed the manipulation of scientific data in favor of manmade global warming. While the controversy, dubbed 'Climategate,' made huge headlines, the multiple investigations that have vindicated the scientists involved haven't had the same impact.

In March of 2010, the British House of Commons' Science and Technology committee released the results of their investigation into the scandal, revealing that nothing in the 1,000 emails conflicted with the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity." They concluded that the scientific reputation of the CRU "remains intact." Another independent investigation released in July similarly cleared the scientists, saying they were honest and their research was reliable.

The latest investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department was conducted after Inhofe requested an inquiry into the emails on May 26, 2010. The response, sent to Inhofe this past Friday, states:

In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.

CLICK HERE to view the full report.

Comments

[wolshdog]

02:14 PM on 03/29/2011

well, the man upstairs didn't mention anything about climate change in the bible, so why would Inhofe believe such a thing

[jimboy71]

12:21 PM on 03/30/2011

Ah, well, there was that flood...

[absolument]

02:32 PM on 04/24/2011

The Republican Party isn't mentioned in the Bible either.

[StephenBP]

02:50 PM on 03/12/2011

A common argument of denialists in the past has been that Antarctica is not losing ice, therefore there cannot be global warming. Well, those days are over. The rate at which Antarctica is losing ice has now been measured and found to be accelerating. In effect, the typical response of the denialists I've seen to this evidence is something along the lines of "Oh No!"" That cannot be true! The scientists are liars and they are not very smart and they are just making this up to keep their do-nothing government paid jobs!!!!!"

The problem with an RW authoritarian mind set is that it cannot accept data that doesn't come from the Right authority, the Right political party, the Right religion. College drop outs are acceptable sources on climate issues, without question, as long as they have been blessed by the Right wing power elite.

So even though I show the best data from the world experts in their fields, the denialists will ... basically deny that it is true.

I wonder what happens to a denialist mind when climate change evidence is so undeniable that anyone with common sense can understand it? It will be interesting to see in the years ahead.

[jimboy71]

12:23 PM on 03/30/2011

They will become vio//ent.

[absolument]

12:56 AM on 03/31/2011

They will blame the scientists for not having marketed the facts convincingly to the anti-intellectual level of RW authoritarianism.

[Dale D]

02:13 PM on 03/12/2011

Climategate made "huge headines" when it first broke. Yeah for one or two days, then got buried by the state-run media.

[DocSkull]

10:47 AM on 03/17/2011

"then got buried by the state-run media"

What state-run media? If the "state" runs the media and didn't want the story told, why'd the "state" print it with huge headlines?

[jimboy71]

12:23 PM on 03/30/2011

It made huge headlines because it was a manufactured event. The state in the US and the UK does not own the media. Au contraire, they are corporate controlled.

And now, the little fantasy of the far right has been laid to rest.

[StephenBP]

03:08 PM on 03/09/2011

February 2011 Arctic Ice Extent ties for lowest on record...
January 2011 Arctic Ice Extent lowest on record...
2010 Ties for warmest year on record....

Denialists, not wanting to face facts, instead take stolen emails and try to humiliate scientists into silence.

"ExxonMobil gave $1.5M to climate disinformation groups last year, breaking its pledge to stop funding denial machine".

That is who the denialists like to believe.

The Grand Oily Plutocrats and their minions.

Let me guess Chris. You will be back with more " proof" of scandal within a few hours.

The denialist inquisition will no doubt continue to ramp up until the evidence for AGW cannot be denied.

[Dale D]

02:19 PM on 03/12/2011

I learned in second grade that the cause of global warming was that little yellow ball in the sky called the "sun". It has these little spots that flare up and sent really warm air into our atmosphere therby warming the earth. The earth in turn emits carbon deposits that enter the atmosphere and act like a barrier to the sun's "rays" and helps COOL the earth. And I didn't have to have a degree from some Ivy league university to help me understand that basic science. What you have Stevie is a warped religious belief.

[StephenBP]

03:28 PM on 03/12/2011

Your response is an absolutely wonderful parody of someone who hasn't done an awful lot of reading in climatology or science.

That is what is it is, isn't it?

A joke?

[DocSkull]

10:52 AM on 03/17/2011

Solar flares do influence global temperatures, but they are easily measured. They are currently lower than average and don't account for the observed warming.

Other grade school lessons include the difference between science and religion, and that making up stories and false accusations are naughty behaviors.

[Chris 1]

09:58 AM on 03/09/2011

It's a smoking gun;

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/08/penn-state-whitewashed-climategate/

[DocSkull]

10:59 AM on 03/17/2011

From the low-quality blog which the sockpuppet posted:

"Phil Jones in the United Kingdom asked Mann, now at Penn State, by email to delete records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act"

That can't be true. UK FoIA only applies to entities of the British government. Most of those involved were Americans and the emails were about their work for the IPCC which did not release work product until after the report is finished. None of that is covered by FoIA in Britain or elsewhere and they were free to do whatever they like with their emails.

[jimboy71]

12:28 PM on 03/30/2011

Nothing is true...eat your own head...trust no-one.

[StephenBP]

08:47 PM on 03/08/2011

The latest investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department was conducted after Inhofe requested an inquiry into the emails on May 26, 2010. The response, sent to Inhofe this past Friday, states:

In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.

Based on the response of denialist bloggers, this is a typical case of guilty until proven Republican.

[Chris 1]

08:44 AM on 03/09/2011

The data sets involved in climatgate are unrelated to NOAA.

This is disinformation.

[DocSkull]

11:02 AM on 03/17/2011

"The data sets involved in climatgate are unrelated to NOAA."

Among the stolen emails were some from NOAA climatologists. A favorite of mine included a satirical cartoon of Inhofe himself.

[Chris 1]

06:08 PM on 03/08/2011

The bogus investigations have been exposed;

http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/08/wahl-transcript-excerpt/

Q. I guess if the exchange of comments and your review was appropriate, I guess what I’m just trying to understand why you’d be ask to delete the emails after the fact, at the time that they’re — it appears that the CRU is receiving FOIA requests
A. Yeah. I had no knowledge of anything like that. But that’s what they were — where they were coming from. And so, you’d have to ask Keith Briffa that. I don’t know what was in his mind.

/////////////////

Ken Briffa is under the bus for sure, what sham the CRU and Penn State look like. Now there will be legs and discovery at the University of Virginia.

Destroying government records to avoid a FOI request, cover the junk data sets to protect the already dying Hockey Schtick.

[DocSkull]

11:12 AM on 03/17/2011

"Ken Briffa is under the bus for sure..."

That is sad for Ken, but Keith Briffa is doing quite well. CRU has been cleared by a number of independent investigations by scientific and political bodies. There is no bus, or in this case, lorry.

The fact that after two decades deniers are still trying to crack the "Hockey Stick" demonstrates how poorly they are doing.

[jimboy71]

12:29 PM on 03/30/2011

Because all that goes on in every university on earth is the single minded obsession of falsification of data so that climate scientists may continue to enjoy robust funding for their aforementioned obsession...

Do you even hear yourself? For shame.

[StephenBP]

03:49 PM on 03/08/2011

I will re-iterate what I said earlier,.
I know of no scientist, absolutely none, who would deny that carbon dioxide is IR active. If they deny that, they are not a scientist.
I know of no scientist, absolutely none, who would deny that carbon dioxide is a major component of natural global warming. And notice, I said natural global warming. Without carbon dioxide, the earth would probably not be habitable in the way we know it today.
I know of no chemical engineer who would consider 29 gigatons per year of a human manufactur­ed, non condensing, IR active gas insignific­ant. 29 gigatons is a lot of anything.

Somehow though, many people are incapable of doing the simple thought experiment that requires them to hypothesiz­e that adding 29 extra gigatons of an IR active, non condensing gas into the atmosphere every year has to have some effect on global temperatur­e.

Climate gate, the theft of private emails, apparently by a Russian hacker, is used by the denialists as an opportunity to avoid having to face the science of the situation. Instead, they attempt to smear decent people. Just the sort of thing that Karl Rove would do, and just as despicable.

[Chris 1]

07:08 PM on 03/08/2011

There is zero evidence that the emails were "hacked". 90% of the time such emails are leaked regardless of subject.

Since AGW is a conspiracy theory to start with it's no surprise you want the tracks covered with more muck.

[DocSkull]

11:14 AM on 03/17/2011

"There is zero evidence that the emails were "hacked""

The police investigating the crime say they were hacked.

[jimboy71]

12:30 PM on 03/30/2011

So you know better than scientists, police, the media, and everyone else? My you are clever.

[Richard2]

12:51 PM on 03/08/2011

A federal government inspector general has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes. This has been confirmed to Senate offices. It will not be released to the public for some time because the investigation is ongoing.

The document, an interview transcript, will put an end to the foolish talk of anything resembling a ClimateGate “inquiry” having taken place. It will also invite a real inquiry into the affair. Expect fireworks, as the one such effort, by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, is being fought hysterically by Big Science and Big Academia.

Critically, it also begs questions of Penn State University, which conducted one of the three supposed inquiries into ClimateGate.

The key point is that the Penn State investigators never interviewed a principal who was able to confirm or deny a key charge against “Hockey Stick” lead author of “Hide the Decline” infamy Michael Mann. This individual has now been interviewed, and what he told federal investigators has indicted Mann and Penn State.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/08/penn-state-whitewashed-climategate/#ixzz1G1zql4Ly

[Chris 1]

07:11 PM on 03/08/2011

Expect major name calling over the next few days. Then all kinds of drivel about evolution and "real science".

It boosts the Virgina AG, which I thought was a stretch until now.

Who deleted what emails and when?? It really is a game changer.

[DocSkull]

11:22 AM on 03/17/2011

"Expect major name calling over the next few days."

You could avoid that by avoiding statements that warrant ridicule.

[jimboy71]

12:31 PM on 03/30/2011

Yes it is. Deleted emails are proof positive that Arhennius was wrong, and that up is down.

[DocSkull]

11:20 AM on 03/17/2011

The author of the poor quality blog thinks that British laws apply to Americans, and that volunteer work done for international body is subject to national laws.

He's not very bright and doing a very bad job of talking about things he doesn't understand to smear people who have done no wrong. He's a scoundrel and a liar.

[StephenBP]

08:59 PM on 03/03/2011

"A new investigation into the 'Climategate' controversy has exonerated U.S. scientists of any wrongdoing. The probe was conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department's inspector general at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). "

When honorable, reputable people come to the conclusion that climatologists are not perpetrating a fraud, the denialist squadrons nevertheless continue to buzz about the noncontroversy like flies on feces.

What is most remarkable is the "Through The Looking Glass" nature of all this. People with severe political ideologies bordering on religiousity call scientists cultists. That is so ironic.

My arguments in favor of my belief that human manufactured carbon dioxide is warming the climate are based on personal observation, on reading scientific journals, on my scientific education.... and yet, in a world where science is scorned, especially by Republicans, my voice and the voices of people like me is assaulted by people misled by emotion.

I know of no scientist, absolutely none, who would deny that carbon dioxide is IR active and that it is a major component of natural global warming. I know of no engineer who would term 29 gigatons of human manufactured carbon dioxide per year an insignificant quantity.

Somehow though, many people are incapable of doing the simple thought experiment that requires them to hypothesize that adding 29 extra gigatons of an IR active gas into the atmosphere every year cannot NOT have some effect on global temperature.

The only question now is... how much of an effect?

[Richard2]

12:58 PM on 03/08/2011

Q. Did you ever receive a request by either Michael Mann or any others to delete any emails?
A. I did receive that email. That’s the last one on your list here. I did receive that.

Q. So, how did you actually come about receiving that? Did you actually just — he just forward the — Michael Mann — and it was Michael Mann I guess?
A. Yes

Q. — That you received the email from?
A. Correct …
A. To my knowledge, I just received a forward from him.

Q. And what were the actions that you took?
A. Well, to the best of my recollection, I did delete the emails.

Q. So, did you find the request unusual, that they were — that the request — that you were being requested to delete such emails?
A. Well, I had never received one like it. In that sense, it was unusual.

Q. I guess if the exchange of comments and your review was appropriate, I guess what I’m just trying to understand why you’d be ask to delete the emails after the fact, at the time that they’re — it appears that the CRU is receiving FOIA requests
A. Yeah. I had no knowledge of anything like that. But that’s what they were — where they were coming from. And so, you’d have to ask Keith Briffa that. I don’t know what was in his mind.

Discussion of the above are at the climate audit blog.

[DocSkull]

11:24 AM on 03/17/2011

"I did delete the emails."

They were his emails to delete and contained nothing subject to FoIA in any country.

[jimboy71]

12:32 PM on 03/30/2011

If deleted emails were evidence of fraud, then colour the world guilty. Your blogs are garbage.

[Chris 1]

07:20 PM on 03/08/2011

Where is the link on the Inholfe quote?, it looks bogus or out of context.

MMCO2 is 3% of total co2 input per year (97% natural) on average. Co2 is 3% of GHG.

These are facts. The co2 sink is undefined and not well understood. The focus on co2 is political with the focus on co2 money and regulations, the eco-left pooh-baahs of course.

[Junksciencecutecritters]

11:27 PM on 03/02/2011

The global warming cult is just like Scientology now. It's a science fiction story that became a religion.

[jimboy71]

12:33 PM on 03/30/2011

Non Erat Demonstratum. Conjecture with hyperbole is not proof.

[maxwells]

11:10 PM on 03/02/2011

Regardless what science gets in your face, lotsa people just parrot their political pundit's talking points.

One favorite is that cap'n trade's a $billion scam for the ruling super-rich­ oligarchy.

Yet, no way cap'n trade'll get through congress, and many progressiv­es disfavor it for the same reasons conservati­ves and liberts do - easily abused by super-rich oligarchy.

But why would Gore and Soros ride that dead horse when they could make bigger bucks betting on Exxon and the Koch brothers, who really do make $billions?

Makes no sense.

Meanwhile, who's your pundit?

Beck - last year $32M. Hannity - $20M, Limbaugh - $50M. Fox News chief, Roger Ailes - $14 - $22M a year.

Aren't they ruling oligarchy?

How about their boss?

Aussie Rupert Murdoch - $6.3 Billion. Murdoch family owns ~30% of News Corp., umbrella for Fox News, Wall St. Journal, etc. - made $624M last year while paying almost no tax.

News Corp.'s 2nd biggest shareholde­r, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal owns 7%. Net worth ~$20 Billion.

Koch brothers oil/gas - $35 Billion.

If these guys aren't ruling oligarchy, then WHO?

So, what's Murdoch say about global warming?

"I am proud to announce that News Corporatio­n has reached its first major sustainabi­lity milestone: we have become carbon neutral across all of our global operations and we are the first company of our kind to do so."

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2011/03/01­/rupert-mu­rdoch-news­-corp-carb­on-neutral­_n_829640.­html

So, who're they punking now, you?

[Chris 1]

11:08 PM on 03/02/2011

Of couirse anyone who disagrees isn't a "scientist" according to many board trolls here. Dr. Mueller of Berkley, clearly unqualified to speak Dardedar right?;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

You can watch the whole presentation or you can go about 30 minutes in and see what the consequences of "hide the decline" and the Michael Mann "trick" look like on a graph.

These whitewash investigations are smoke and mirrors. Similar to NY Times polls on Wisconsin unions or IPCC summary reports where most of the scientists are locked out without their work represented or even portrayed with accuracy.

[DocSkull]

09:51 AM on 03/06/2011

"Of couirse anyone who disagrees isn't a "scientist­" according to many board trolls here. Dr. Mueller of Berkley, clearly unqualifie­d to speak Dardedar right?"

Anyone can speak, but they must do it honestly. Richard Muller merely uses known bad data because he can't be bothered to read the supporting literature. He's casting accusations without once referring to the published materials which explain why tree rings decline and why readings with scientific instruments are better. But I imagine his careless accusations pleased the clients of Muller & Associates, his consulting business which specializes in issues related to energy.

[Chris 1]

07:23 PM on 03/08/2011

Rather than put up an argument we get another smear, part and parcel of the agw cult culture.

All he did was illustrate Mann's fraud data, why the complaint?

[jimboy71]

12:33 PM on 03/30/2011

No, just that we haven't had the luxury of hearing from any dissenting scientists. In what domain do you hold your Bachelor's?

[Chris 1]

12:37 PM on 03/02/2011

More information surpression at the IPCC;

http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/02/ipcc-and-the-east-anglia-refusal/#more-13166

What about climate science requires this level of secrecy?? Of course the IPCC is a poltical organization with an involved statist agenda, science is just something to manipulate for a political end.

[DocSkull]

10:00 AM on 03/06/2011

"What about climate science requires this level of secrecy?"

What do any of the properly rejected requests have to do with science?

Steve McIntyre is a sniveling crybaby who pouts on his blog whenever he doesn't get to hassle people for his meager handouts. Everyday he whines "I hassled them good today boss, may I please have some crumbs from your plate?" One has to wonder what has gone horribly wrong in that man's life to make him chose to make his living that way.