APP - Surprisingly, the THIRD "Climate Gate" Review vindicates climate scientists

[Cypress]

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/scienceand...-panel-clears-global-warming-researchers.html
http://climateprogress.org/

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

 

[Thorn]

Good find. I've been following these articles and the final, definitive one was today on cnn.com.

 

[Cypress]

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.

 

[Cypress]

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/2010/07/07/the-muir-cru-apologia-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

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

 

[DamnYankee]

Its a scam.

 

[WinterBorn]

Its a scam.

Proof?

 

[DamnYankee]

They haven't given any.

 

[Cypress]

#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.

 

[Don Quixote]

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

 

[DamnYankee]

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.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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!

 

[Cypress]

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

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

 

[Cypress]

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/opinion/11sun2.html?_r=1

 

[tinfoil]

I can't wait to see what you think of the BP inquiry when it takes place

The problems with the science were not addressed. Read the report.


They didn't consider the science. So it doesn't change that Mann subsituted real temps for "faulty" proxy data that didn't meet expectations. This part hasn't changed and it's shocking that the inquiry gave a nod to the scientists using the trick, while also saying the trick was deceptive

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I can't wait to see what you think of the BP inquiry when it takes place

The problems with the science were not addressed. Read the report.


They didn't consider the science. So it doesn't change that Mann subsituted real temps for "faulty" proxy data that didn't meet expectations. This part hasn't changed and it's shocking that the inquiry gave a nod to the scientists using the trick, while also saying the trick was deceptive

Looks to me like they did. They also thoroughly investigated the accusations you and others on the right wing are making and found them to be with out merit.

 

[Cypress]

I can't wait to see what you think of the BP inquiry when it takes place

The problems with the science were not addressed. Read the report.


They didn't consider the science. So it doesn't change that Mann subsituted real temps for "faulty" proxy data that didn't meet expectations. This part hasn't changed and it's shocking that the inquiry gave a nod to the scientists using the trick, while also saying the trick was deceptive

Uh, bro: you and about half a dozen other jpp.com wingnuts are no longer allowed to go back to claiming that you’re just innocently questioning the scientific methodology of climate researchers. I'll be there to remind you of Climate Gate the minute you try that.

You dudes spent the last nine months making hilarious claims that climate scientists were lying, manipulating data, perpetrating fraud, and faking out the public. I knew once you started doing that y’all had jumped the shark and that this would blow up in your face. I patiently sat back for months, watched y’all rant about lying scientists, and calmly waited for the nuclear implosion. Y'all no longer have any credibility on the subject: you all went off the deep end in a flurry of speculation about lying scientists who practicing fraudulent science, allegedly in the hopes of securing more grant money.

Absolutely fricking preposterous. One thing I’ve learned from message boarding, is the second someone starts blabbing about a fantastical global conspiracy, the issue has moved beyond the realm of rational debate and empirical facts. It’s all based on emotion with you dudes. Do you really expect any sane and fair person to believe that three investigations, including the British Parliament and two independent review panels are in collusion with climate scientists worldwide to deceive the public and perpetrate fake and fraudulent science? Laughable.


Three review panels dismissed all your blather about lying scientists as being wholly unsubstantiated and without merit. The independent review took the extraordinary step, in my view, of emphasizing that the CRU researchers integrity and rigor as scientists was beyond doubt.

As for the actual science, the CRU temperature studies have been validated by multiple lines of evidence and numerous other researchers. The Russell Meirs Panel itself was able to independently reproduce the CRU temperature record with publicly available data – further corroborating the CRU temperature record work.

The science has been peer reviewed and scrutinized to death over the past two decades. The body of work of modern climate science is among the most researched, corroborated, peer reviewed and tested tenets in the history of modern science.*** Can you travel the world and find some dude with a science degree who speculates that the state of modern climate science is all mucked up? No doubt. You can still travel the world and find somebody with a science degree who denies that second hand smoke from cigarettes is a health risk. That’s just the way it is. In a world that probably has millions of people with science degrees you’re going to get a spectrum of opinions.

But, the bottom line is, the scientists who are actually trained to do climate science, and who do the actual peer reviewed research have reached a virtually universal consensus..... As the US National Academy of Sciences stated this year: It’s an established scientific fact that global warming is happening, and that it is very likely that humans are largely responsible for the warming of the last half century.





***footnote:

”Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. …..While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”

--U.S. National Research Council, 2010.

In the definitive peer-reviewed NRC report on Climate Change, 2010.

 

[Cypress]

UPDATE FOR THE CLIMATE GATE CLOWN COMMUNITY......


You all were the ones that yelped about lying scientists. The Russel Meirs panel did exactly what you hollered about – they investigated to see if the scientific process had been corrupted, or if fraud had occurred. They found ALL of your Climate Gate Clown claims to be complete bunk, and that the CRU scientists integrity and rigor were not in doubt.

Russel Meirs Independent Review Panel of CRU:

“Given the nature of our remit, our concern is with….whether attempts have been made to misrepresent, or ―cherry pick data with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis, or to withhold data so that it cannot be independently validated, or to suppress other hypotheses to prevent them being put to the test.”

**************************************************************************

Now, if you want to stomp and scream that IPCC lied, and that “nobody” has reviewed the science behind the IPCC assessment, I urge you to tear yourselves away from the Sarah Palin facebook page, and take a gander at some other highly reputable scientific sources.

The IPCC’s conclusions have been independently verified and corroborated by the United State’s most prestigious scientific institutions, These institutions published detailed and robust independent assessments written and developed by panels of reputable experts, and peer reviewed by experts throughout the country.

Somehow, I don’t think your blog links, your british tabloid links, and your Wikipedia links are really even in the same universe as this…..

U.S. Global Climate Change Program
A consortium of Scientific Entities, including:
NASA
NOAA
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institute
Department of Energy
US Environmental Protection Agency
Dept. of the Interior
Dept. of Defense

2009 ASSESSMENT - KEY FINDINGS:

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.
3.Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
4. Climate change will stress water resources.
5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
7. Threats to human health will increase.
8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings

and....

US National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences

NRC 2010 Definitive Report on Climate Change,

overwhelmingly corroborating the IPCC conclusions.

http://americasclimatechoices.org/

 

[tinfoil]

Looks to me like they did. They also thoroughly investigated the accusations you and others on the right wing are making and found them to be with out merit.

Jones was never even interviewed by Muir Russell. Read the minutes
Real thorough!

We get it. you guys are satisfied with the ridiculous whitewashes so good for you. It's hilarious, but soon enough we'll vote out the warmers and we'll put an end to this chirade. The cat is out of the bag and your side will never again be able to trick the public. Good luck with your warming. LOL

You guys are defiantely not worth debating on the subject. I've yet to see you link a single study you've read which helped you understand for yourself why you believe the warming theory.