Climategate—Seriously??

It's hard to believe that anyone at this point takes the so-called Climategate seriously.  Yet I have encountered several individuals recently who appear to sincerely believe that Climategate was a real scandal that somehow disproves all the scientific evidence for climate change/global warming accumulated over the past 150+ years.


Climategate started in 2009 when an unknown hacker broke into computer servers at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK.  Out-of-context quotes and carefully selected e-mails (some heavily edited to change the meaning) were then leaked in an attempt to discredit prominent climate scientists and the entire field of climate research, and to disrupt the Copenhagen climate conference.  Media attention, mostly from right-wing news sources, trumpeted the "scandal" at the time and drove multiple investigations into the matter in the UK and the USA.

Unfortunately, the results of all those investigations has been, shall we say, less well covered.  After all, exonerations are boring.  And that is just how every single last investigation ended: With an exoneration.
  • UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia 
    •  "136. Conclusion 1   The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU."
    • "137. Conclusion 2   In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity"."
  • Report of the Science Assessment Panel (University of East Anglia)
    • "We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe it is likely that we would have detected it."
  • The Independent Climate Change Emails Review
    • "On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
    • "In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
    • "On the allegations of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it."
  • Pennsylvania State University Inquiry Committee
    •  "After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or falsify data."
  • Pennsylvania State University Final Inquiry Report
    • "The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University."
  • US Environmental Protection Agency
    • "EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
  • US Department of Commerce Inspector General
    • "In the course of our inquiry, we examined all of the 1,073 CRU emails that were posted on the internet (spanning 13 years, from 1996 to 2009), primarily focusing on the 289 emails that involved NOAA."
    • "In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures."
  • US National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General report into Dr. Mann's research
    • "We next considered the University's second Allegation, related to the emails.  We reviewed the emails and concluded that nothing contained in them evidenced research misconduct within the definition in the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation."
    • "There is no specific evidence that the Subject falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct."
Quite frankly, if so-called "Climategate" is all the evidence you have that global warming is fake, then you need help as you're living in a fantasy world.

Comments

  1. BlueHost is ultimately one of the best hosting company with plans for any hosting requirements.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

James Taylor gets polar ice wrong—as usual

Tom Luongo's multiple lies about climate change