Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: Surprisingly, the THIRD "Climate Gate" Review vindicates climate scientists

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,288 Times in 27,096 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default Surprisingly, the THIRD "Climate Gate" Review vindicates climate scientists

    No one could have predicted that three independent reviews (the third review being the most in-depth and forensic), found that the underlying climate science was SOLID, that there was no lying, no falsifying of data, no conspiracy to defraud the public.

    Wow. Case totally closed. The only legitimate criticism is for more transparency on the part of the researchers. The science and the scientists themselves have been so completely and thoroughly vindicated that one wonders who exactly was dim witted enough to have been easily duped into buying the hilarious Climate Gate Clown claims about lying scientists who "faked" and lied about their data.

    Climategate' E-mails: Third Independent Panel Clears Global Warming Researchers

    Final ‘forensic’ UK report on emails vindicates climate science and research underlying the Hockey Stick

    Muir Russell investigation "did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC" and says of CRU, "Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."




    Findings

    Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. [Emphasis is added by the panel.]

    In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

    On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it.

    On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias.

    The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.

    On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail.

    On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 [the Fourth Assessment] to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld.

    15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.


    http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceands...searchers.html
    http://climateprogress.org/

    http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,455
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 5 Times in 1 Post
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Good find. I've been following these articles and the final, definitive one was today on cnn.com.
    My goal in life is to be as good a person as my dog thinks I am.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,288 Times in 27,096 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorn View Post
    Good find. I've been following these articles and the final, definitive one was today on cnn.com.

    Thanks Thorn. I'll scope out CNN.

    It's a shame that reputable scientists who were just doing excellent and respected work were smeared and slandered. That a-hole Senator Inhofe even suggested these scientists be brought up on criminal charges. Insane, man!

    Climate change is one of the most studied, one of the most peer reviewed scientific topics in modern science. And science, as you must know, is like any professional field; it's highly competitive. The blather that scientists and scientific institutions were in cooperation and collusion globally in some massive and nefarious conspiracy to fake data and commit scientific fraud is preposterous. It's literally on a par with the 9/11 truthers and birthers.

    Man, it's McCarthyist. These science dudes deserve a groveling and sniveling apology from the climate gate conspiracy theorists.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,288 Times in 27,096 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    You’d think the decent person would apologize for smearing and slandering reputable scientists who merely did their jobs.

    But, amazingly an unsavory trip through the backwaters of the wingnutosphere appears to indicate that Climate Gate Clowns still want to desparately cling to their phony, fabricated “scandal”. And that somehow, three independent review panels – including the British Pariament, the Russell Muir Review Panel, and the Oxborough Panel are all in collusion with CRU scientists to deceive the public.

    It’s apparently all one big, worldwide conspiracy by scientists, independent review panels, and the British Parliament to make right wingers look like idiots!

    As demonstated here: this whining, heartbroken, crybaby NeoCon blogger is crushed and outraged that CRU is vindicated and now festooned with a halo of uber-credibility.

    Some Wingnut Blog, July 8:

    The Muir Russell CRU Apologia is out

    "The Muir Russell Report is out. Read here in PDF. Unfortunately Russell is another apologist who doesn’t ask relevant questions of both sides, only one side. Even BBC now thinks the CRU wears a halo…"

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/0...ologia-is-out/


    Man, the Muir Russell report is actually amazing. It’s a very detailed, very in-depth, very forensic, and very robust review of the whole climategate faux “scandal”. It’s amazing anyone went to that much effort to debunk a rightwing lie that most educated people and scientists knew was bullshit from the start.

    Every claim about CUR’s dishonesty, or their allegedly falsifying and manipulating data was completely debunked by the Russell Meir Panel. That Panel was even able to independently reconstruct temperature records from publically available records that corroborated CRU’s temperature records. And also noted that CRU’s temperature records are additionally corroborated by multiple lines of evidence and by other independent researchers.




    Russel Meir Review Panal:

    In summary, with regard to the allegations concerning the temperature data, the
    conclusions of the Review Team are as follows:

    -Regarding data availability, there is no basis for the allegations that CRU
    prevented access to raw data. It was impossible for them to have done so.

    -Regarding data adjustments, there is no basis for the allegation that CRU made
    adjustments to the data which had any significant effect upon global averages
    and through this fabricated evidence for recent warming.

    -We find that CRU was unhelpful in dealing with requests for information to
    enable detailed replication of the CRUTEM analysis.

    -Crucially, we find nothing in the behaviour on the part of CRU scientists that is the subject of the allegations dealt with in this Chapter to undermine the validity of their work.

    Good times.

    Science: 1……Rightwing: 0

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    No one could have predicted that three independent reviews (the third review being the most in-depth and forensic), found that the underlying climate science was SOLID, that there was no lying, no falsifying of data, no conspiracy to defraud the public.

    Wow. Case totally closed. The only legitimate criticism is for more transparency on the part of the researchers. The science and the scientists themselves have been so completely and thoroughly vindicated that one wonders who exactly was dim witted enough to have been easily duped into buying the hilarious Climate Gate Clown claims about lying scientists who "faked" and lied about their data.
    #15 Is the only legitimate criticism coming out of Climate Gate but let's not forget the lesson to be learned for Scientist. Science always works best in a transparent and open environment. By being closed and secretive the CRU set themselves up for these types of allegations, even though they ultimately proved false. This is another fine example of scientist being naive about how their work can impact public policy and how that can ran afoul of the vested interests in the status quo.
    Last edited by Mott the Hoople; 07-08-2010 at 06:41 AM.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Its a scam.

  7. #7 | Top
    WinterBorn Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Its a scam.
    Proof?

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    They haven't given any.

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,288 Times in 27,096 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    #15 Is the only legitimate criticism coming out of Climate Gate but let's not forget the lesson to be learned for Scientist. Science always works best in a transparent and open environment. By being closed and secretive the CRU set themselves up for these types of allegations, even though they ultimately proved false. This is another fine example of scientist being naive about how their work can impact public policy and how that can ran afoul of the vested interests in the status quo.
    True dat. They obviously need to be more aware of the legal, and political ramifications of complete transparency.

    If Cons had just stuck with that, they wouldn't have egg on their face. But, they hilariously tried to promote the whole schtick about lying, fraudulent climate scientists faking their data. Man, you really shouldn't believe anything you read on rightwing blogs.

    However, the Oxborough report, as I recall, did say that it was understandable why these science dudes were dragging their feet on releasing data to Climate Gate Clowns. The Climate Gate Clowns have a habit of lying and harassing scientists, for no valid scientific reason. And these science dudes were just fed up with it.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Lompoc, Ca
    Posts
    8,430
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 1,472 Times in 1,090 Posts
    Groans
    475
    Groaned 278 Times in 249 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    Its a scam.
    anything to avoid paying more for energy - of course most of what we pay enriches our enemies

    so why not go greener and keep our money at home
    I pledge allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America as amended by the legislative and executive branches and interpreted by the Supreme Court

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonQuixote View Post
    anything to avoid paying more for energy - of course most of what we pay enriches our enemies

    so why not go greener and keep our money at home
    I'm an "all of the above" guy. Drill here, nukes here, photovoltaic arrays over interstate highways, windmills every dam where...

    I'd also like to see a tariff on OPEC oil and use the money to pay for our troops being in the Mideast.

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Basically, what you have Prissy, is a "finding" by a group of pinheads, that another group of pinheads are credible and trustworthy, even though the emails proved they weren't. You can throw up FOUR, SIX, EIGHT, or a HUNDRED "findings" by other agenda-driven pinheads, it doesn't change the reality of what these clowns tried to pull.

    It's bad enough you are asking people to dole out trillions to pay for your stupidity, but it's fraudulent and manipulated stupidity at that! I think this Global Warming thing is dead, give it up! Bury it along side the ERA of 1970, and let it rest in peace!

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,288 Times in 27,096 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    If y'all ever have the decency and courtesy of apologizing to the scientists, this is a convenient and ready-made template.


  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    True dat. They obviously need to be more aware of the legal, and political ramifications of complete transparency.

    If Cons had just stuck with that, they wouldn't have egg on their face. But, they hilariously tried to promote the whole schtick about lying, fraudulent climate scientists faking their data. Man, you really shouldn't believe anything you read on rightwing blogs.

    However, the Oxborough report, as I recall, did say that it was understandable why these science dudes were dragging their feet on releasing data to Climate Gate Clowns. The Climate Gate Clowns have a habit of lying and harassing scientists, for no valid scientific reason. And these science dudes were just fed up with it.
    Again, that's a big mistake by scientist. I know that most scientist would rather gnaw their arm off then engage in politics but it's naive of them to think that they cannot do so on a topic so globally comprehensive as ACC. Faced with these circumstances scientist have an ethical obligation to engage in the political process. Climate Gate stands as a good example of what can happen to a scientist when they do not. Many very good scientist were of the edge of having their reputations and credibility destroyed by some right wing nuts because these scientist did not want to waste time and get their hands dirty engaging in something as nasty as politics. The problem with that is the right wing nuttso had no problems getting their hands dirty engaging in politics and their naive attitude about engaging in the political arena nearly cost these scientist (and the public who depend on their work) dearly.

    I dont know how many times I've learned this with the Creationist and ID clowns. I don't know how many communities, particularly in very religious areas have had to defend the proper teaching of biology in their schools because the local biologist (or those so educated) think it's beneath them to waste time in publicly debating creationist with the not unexpected result, at the local level, that the creationist/anti-science, pro-religious types win the battle by default cause the scientist don't show up.

    It's one of the reason why, in the past, I have been politically active on this issue. I don't want religion being taught in the biology class rooms in my communities schools. I've attended a number of open meetings of school boards where the RR showed up in mass to demand their religion be taught in science class only to have me and a handfull of others with a science background show up to save the day.

    Anyways my point being is that those of us with science backgrounds and who have an aversion to participating in politics, need to get over that aversion when issues of science become engaged in the political arena.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,788
    Thanks
    35,476
    Thanked 50,288 Times in 27,096 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    Again, that's a big mistake by scientist. I know that most scientist would rather gnaw their arm off then engage in politics but it's naive of them to think that they cannot do so on a topic so globally comprehensive as ACC. Faced with these circumstances scientist have an ethical obligation to engage in the political process. Climate Gate stands as a good example of what can happen to a scientist when they do not. Many very good scientist were of the edge of having their reputations and credibility destroyed by some right wing nuts because these scientist did not want to waste time and get their hands dirty engaging in something as nasty as politics. The problem with that is the right wing nuttso had no problems getting their hands dirty engaging in politics and their naive attitude about engaging in the political arena nearly cost these scientist (and the public who depend on their work) dearly.

    I dont know how many times I've learned this with the Creationist and ID clowns. I don't know how many communities, particularly in very religious areas have had to defend the proper teaching of biology in their schools because the local biologist (or those so educated) think it's beneath them to waste time in publicly debating creationist with the not unexpected result, at the local level, that the creationist/anti-science, pro-religious types win the battle by default cause the scientist don't show up.

    It's one of the reason why, in the past, I have been politically active on this issue. I don't want religion being taught in the biology class rooms in my communities schools. I've attended a number of open meetings of school boards where the RR showed up in mass to demand their religion be taught in science class only to have me and a handfull of others with a science background show up to save the day.

    Anyways my point being is that those of us with science backgrounds and who have an aversion to participating in politics, need to get over that aversion when issues of science become engaged in the political arena.

    Bless you, man! It’s amazing that a country founded by renaissance people of the liberal enlightenment like Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison have continually had to fight back the onslaught of the Christian Taliban, the Creationists, and the Climate Gate Clowns. I think this Christian Taliban crap didn’t start until the mid-19th century, but it’s like a virus once it starts.

    I applaud you, brother. It takes a sustained and conscientious effort to keep the forces of ignorance and darkness at bay!


    Here, the New York Times issues an apology-of-sorts, for the fabricated “Climate Gate” scandal. It’s a pretty weak apology given their complicity; NY Times was at the forefront of providing spin and cover to the Climate Gate Clowns. But, it’s a pretty good summary of the legacy of “Climate Gate”; aka it’s time to stop listening to fabricated slander and ignorance of the Christian Taliban and the science-deniers, and start to address a major environmental problem that is corroborated by mountains of scientific evidence and backed by the nearly universal consensus of reputable scientists who actually do real climate research.


    A Climate Change Corrective
    Published: July 9, 2010

    Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming.

    On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible.

    It was the fifth such review of hundreds of e-mail exchanges among some of the world’s most prominent climatologists. Some of the e-mail messages, purloined last November, were mean-spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a timid reluctance to share data. Climate skeptics pounced on them as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming.

    The panel found no such conspiracy.

    It complained mildly about one poorly explained temperature chart discussed in the e-mail, but otherwise found no reason to dispute the scientists’ “rigor and honesty.” Two earlier panels convened by Britain’s Royal Society and the House of Commons reached essentially the same verdict.

    And this month, a second panel at Penn State University exonerated Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist and faculty member, of scientific wrongdoing.

    Dr. Mann, who was part of the e-mail exchange, had been accused of misusing data to prove that the rise in temperatures over the last century was directly linked to steadily rising levels of carbon dioxide. His findings, confirmed many times by others, are central to the argument that fossil fuels must be taxed or regulated.

    Another (no less overblown) climate change controversy may also be receding from view. This one involves an incorrect assertion in the United Nations’ 3,000-page report on climate change in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The U.N. acknowledged the error and promised to tighten its review procedures. Even so, this and one or two other trivial mistakes were presented by some as further proof that scientists cannot be trusted and that warming is a hoax.

    There have since been several reports upholding the U.N.’s basic findings, including a major assessment in May from the National Academy of Sciences. This assessment not only confirmed the relationship between climate change and human activities but warned of growing risks — sea level rise, drought, disease — that must swiftly be addressed by firm action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

    Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on, one must hope that the academy’s report, and Wednesday’s debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies……….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/op...sun2.html?_r=1

Similar Threads

  1. The "Climate Gate" conspiracy theory: Game Over
    By Cypress in forum Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-12-2022, 05:58 AM
  2. Replies: 162
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 08:30 AM
  3. "Climate Gate": The Lion that Squeaked Like a Mouse
    By Cypress in forum Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-17-2010, 02:50 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-20-2010, 10:15 PM
  5. Fed-up Climate Scientists Call for Strong Climate Treaty
    By blackascoal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 10:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •