'Climategate' scientists cleared - Macleans.ca

‘Climategate’ scientists cleared

Second inquiry finds no wrongdoing


The second of three probes into the ‘climategate’ controversy has vindicated the Climatic Research Unit scientists implicated in the email scandal. The panel was lead by Lord Oxburgh, former chair of the U.K.’s House of Lords science and technology select committee, and commissioned by the University of East Anglia (UAE). They found that although the researchers may have been a bit disorganized, unprepared to deal with the public and extremely informal in their day-to-day interactions, their research was solid and free from malpractice. However, the panel also criticized the government for charging for access to the unit’s findings and wondered why more statisticians weren’t involved in collecting data for the research. The UAE responded to the report by saying, “It is gratifying to us that the Oxburgh report points out that CRU has done a public service of great value by carrying out meticulous work on temperature records when it was unfashionable and attracted little scientific interest.” The third report, also commissioned by the UAE, is expected to be released shortly and will go beyond examining research to investigate allegations arising from statements made in the emails themselves.


Filed under:

‘Climategate’ scientists cleared

  1. So this latest white wash was commissioned by the same bunch who fudged the date, defied UK freedom of information laws, threatened any scientific journal who published anyone who questioned them with ostracism and were cooking up schemes to character assassinate any scientist who disagreed with the dogma. Well I guess that's all "settled" then. Right. Meanwhile the blizzards continue non stop out west and it dipped below freezing here last night, three weeks into spring. Not to mention the fact that Arctic ice pack levels returned to normal this year. That darn mother nature just refuses to get with the doomsday scenario. No wonder they had to change the con from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". Cheers.

    • Learn the difference between "Global" and "My neighbourhood"

      • Nothing to say about his other points though right? Didn't think so…

        • I tend not to argue with flat-earthers either.

          • Many supporters of Global Warming have already voiced their embarrassment at this review. It took about three weeks, failed to look at any of the criticisms of the data collection and analysis, and took input only from the CRU. Hardly a rigorous investigation.

          • citation needed.

    • It always was Climate Change. What do you think IPCC stands for? And when do you think it was established?
      These are complicated matters, maybe you should do some research on your own before mindlessly repeating non sense.
      If you think constant blizzards in spring disprove climate change (or global warming, the two are linked) then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

      • It was not always Climate Change; I'm not sure how you could say that. The debate was for a long time about "Global Warming." The debaters then changed to "Climate Change" when they knew they could no longer argue for warming. The IPCC though, well hey… who's going to name their institution "IPGW"? That doesn't at all sound scientific, now does it?

        It'd be naming your institution after your hypothesis, which from a scientific perspective, would be quite presumptuous.

        • Science – the Scientific Method – is not a debate. Your argument seems to be with the flexible nature of Language, which invents new terms and refines the meaning and label as the idea becomes more precise.

    • In what way are these three separate reviews of the CRU work a "whitewash"?

      Do you have any specific allegations at all? Have you read the reports? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

      • In what way are these three separate reviews of the CRU work a "whitewash"?

        They're a whitewash because they aren't arriving at the wayne's predetermined conclusions. When it comes time for people to choose between admitting they were wrong or screaming "Conspiracy!" and "Cover-up!", always bet on the latter.

        • I just don't think it can be as simplistic as someone going in and say "yep, no wrong here". I doubt there's one skeptic out there that actually thinks these investigations are legitimate. It just seems like a weak attempt to try and get things back to where they were pre-Climategate, when the population was willing to call all skeptics "deniers" and just accept AGW as fact.

          They can't just "undo" Climategate, as much as they would love to. It's going to require moving forward and bringing data to the table that makes skeptics say "this does seem plausible" at the very least.

          There's just something about these investigations that reek of charades.

          • Nobody cares if your "skeptics" who are really deniers think something is plausible or not, because they are too ignorant to be able to make a credible judgment.

            The reek you smell is denialism.

          • Let's get this straight:

            – Three public investigations of "climategate" = weak attempts that "reek of charades"

            – Unspecified cries of Coverup! by anonymous blog commenters = issues that need to be seriously addressed.

            How convenient that resolution of this issue is defined by the emotional satisfaction of climate change deniers. They're a fickle bunch, moving the goalposts according to their feelings. If we want the deniers to be satisfied, we'll have to "bring data to the table that makes skeptics say "this does seem plausible" at the very least." And if they don't capitulate, then the non-deniers of global warming have failed.

            Of course you recognize the "heads we win, tails you lose" nature of this approach, right? How about this: F*ck the deniers. If they can't even muster a specific critique of the original allegations, much less the multiple public investigations of the so-called "climate gate" then they're welcome to join the Tea Party movement and wave misspelled placards on government property.

            The rest of us adults will focus on solving problems. You all are welcome to grow up and join us any time.

          • Haha I won't pretend like I understand the science, so you're not really attacking a denier by attacking me. I only look at the political implications, I let the scientists do the science.

            And until a consensus can be reached that's agreed on, or atleast mostly agreed on, and explainable.. I see no reason to give up my skepticism. The stakes are too high. Freedom itself, is at stake. I reserve the right to deserve a complete, full and clear explanation before any such taxes are imposed.

  2. Why am I not surprised that this will get more press than the actual climate gate scandal? Even though UAE is investigating itself here… Can anyone conflict of interest? This should be a public enquiry.

    • I doubt it will get much media coverage actually. As for Climategate's media coverage… let us not forget how reluctant much of the liberal media was to even mention the word in any of it's articles still advocating for AGW. I still remember that at the time of the story, it took weeks before much of the liberal media even decided to acknowledge it, whereas the rest of the media was reporting it, though not quite front page.

      The liberal media couldn't ignore it forever though as it's comment sections were bombarded with Climategate mentions.

    • [cont]
      I doubt this will get much press coverage for the simple fact no one really expects these investigators to actually say "hey look, fraud!" and it will just continue to shine a light on Climategate, which is not what liberals want.

      I can tell you right now that the third investigation is going to be just like these first two: cleared of all wrongdoing. It's as if they expect us to look at what we saw and then trust their opinion that what we saw was "nothing to see here folks, move along." I'm sorry, that won't cut it. I am entrenched in my skepticism ever since Climategate and until I start to see new research that has an actual consensus, not a feigned one in order to progress an agenda.

      It's an uphill battle now for the AGWers and rightfully so. It was an even field battle until a few decided to manipulate the data. Who are we supposed to trust now? The research needs to be far more clear.

    • Can anybody say "Denialists are bores and of no interest whatsoever?"

  3. IPCC and UEA should know by now that regardless of the facts and evidence provided and probes conducted, they are dealing with people who are looking for wedge issues to fuel a debate, not have a discussion.

    • They were before. That was the problem.

  4. Isn't it too late to do anything to stop climate change? It seems as though we keep arguing about how to stop a phenomenon that is too complicated to understand and couldn't be controlled even if we understood it.

    • Why are you assuming everyone is as ignorant as you are? Climate scientist spend their lives working to understand it.

  5. Whitewash! Whitewash! Whitewash! Whitewash!
    The old USSR is alive and well.

  6. Oh Grow Up People. Read a climatology book or two. Its hilarious that every time scale of the earths climate has CO2 as a major driver of climate and yet on the Centennial Scale people think that it has no effect. On the Tectonic scale (millions of years) Changes in the distribution of continents drive climate partially and the other method the climate changes is through the blague hypothesis or the chemical weathering hypothesis (both list co2 as a driver for climate through these processes), on the hundreds of thousands of year cycles, the earths orbit defines part of the climate but co2 is the feedback mechanism through which initial changes are amplified. Yet on short time scales people think that CO2 (which is in effect a greenhouse gas) does not have an influence on global temperatures? Go to Venus where the atmosphere is 97% CO2 and the average temperature is 450 degrees…

  7. When the RCMP, or the local police, or the government, or a huge corporation investigates itself, the same AGW Collaborators posting here cry foul, but when the UAE does it it's perfectly fine and we should just accept it as fact? Well we know that you are all really good at accepting things 'as fact'.

    @Darden: Well put, and one of the more sensible things mentioned on this thread.

    @Holly: Shame on you for making a personal attack on someone who is just trying to put forth a different point of view. If you have nothing to add that moves the debate forward then please, STFU.

    The fact is that AGW is dead. Everybody but the Collaborators know it, even the scientist know it. Is the planet warming? Possibly, but according to the data from Nasa et al, there has been no net increase in temperature in a decade. And there is little if any direct evidence that we humans have anything to do with it. And if we don't, then how the heck are we supposed to alter it? By giving 'Green' corporations billions of taxpayer dollars to prevent the release of plant food into the atmosphere?

    You people need to get a grip. The warming we are experiencing is cyclical, which makes sense after coming out of the "little ice age" and not nearly as significant as the Medieval Warming Period (conveniently missing from the IPCC data sets) where there was farming in Greenland and grapevines growing in Scotland.

    Why do so many people think they can freeze the planet exactly where it is so that it never changes again? It's an organism folks, things change. Any other point of view is childish sentimentality.

    • How dishonest of you. "…according to the data from Nasa et al, there has been no net increase in temperature in a decade…"

      No link? Are you afraid people will notice that you are lying? Here's what NASA really says:

      "…We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Nino-La Nina cycle of tropical ocean temperature."

    • Very nice. And exactly how did they come up with those numbers? Read this:

      followed by:

      or this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&am
      (3rd coolest October in US history)

      and: http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/global-wa

      Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, had this to say “The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,” Isn't he a friend of yours?

      • The coolest October in the US is not relevent when we are talking about global temperatures. The US only covers 2% of the globe,

        You clearly get your talking points from denialist websites, such as the ones who lie about what Trenberth was talking about. Try some real explanations like this:

        "…After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

        "Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"…"

  8. Lord Oxburgh is also chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association – again can you say conflict of interest!

  9. Why is there a debate still about global warming? Why can't we humans advance our energy R&D and usage routines? How much more damage do we have to do to the planet in order to change? And why is it always the right-wing that holds off progress on this issue? Why is the right-wing so inferior mentally that they can handle no change at all? The right-wing, particularly the American republican party, look and act like cavemen, like sub-humans.