AP: Independent report "largely vindicate[s]" scientists smeared in "Climategate" attack
July 07, 2010 10:40 am ET by Eric Schroeck
The Associated Press reported today that "[a]n independent British report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved, a finding many in the field hope will calm the global uproar dubbed 'Climategate.'" The AP further reported:
The inquiry by former U.K. civil servant Muir Russell into the scandal at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit found there was no evidence of dishonesty or corruption in the more than 1,000 e-mails stolen and posted to the Internet late last year. But he did chide the scientists involved for failing to share their data with critics.
"We find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt," Russell said. "But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness."
Russell's inquiry into the scandal is the third major investigation into the theft and dissemination of the e-mails, which caused a sensation when they were published online in November, right before the U.N. climate change conference at Copenhagen.
As Media Matters has noted, numerous media outlets -- led by Fox News -- advanced the right-wing "Climategate" smear as well as other attacks after the stolen CRU emails were published online. So will these media outlets now report that this investigation has found the "rigor and honesty" of the scientists smeared by the phony scandal is "not in doubt"?
Will these media outlets now report on "why" the "rigorous and honest" scientists didn't share data and get to the bottom of why there was a "consistent pattern" of failing to display the proper degree of openness?
Political cover maybe?
1. It's cultural. We have developed a society where we can get a patent on genetic material. Those scientists were doing what they were culturally trained to do - protect their own stuff.
2. It's practical. If they have to waste time collating data for people who are just going to misuse it and cause them to have to waste more time disputing stupid claims, they have less time to do the stuff they should be doing. (Of course, this one backfired on them and now they are wasting that time with stupid hearings and investigations instead.)
What I would like to ask Russel is why Jones and Mann et. al. should have to collate data for skeptics when those skeptics can go to the original sources and acquire the data for themselves and work up their own databases?
"We found a tendency to answer the wrong question or to give a partial answer," the report said. Other emails were deleted in anticipation of requests for their release.-Russell report
Yes the English even have these laws too.
Why would emails be deleted in anticipation of requests for their release?...I wanda...wanda...wonder...
And the data is available from the original sources for anyone who wants it. NOAA,Hadley, CISL - see, I found three primary sources in less than a minute, all with raw data available online.
So why do the skeptics need to get their data from secondary sources like East Anglia?
This characteristic has been exploited to great effect by the Creationism/Intelligent Design Troglodytes.
'well you see, they are scientists...so you know, they are absent-minded, frizzly-haired, and otherwise occupied, you can't expect them to get involved with politics.'
You've watched too many 'B' science fiction movies.
That doesn't fly.
Scientists wrote this big huge report that lays out what they think is happening and what the effects of various actions we may take will have on those predictions. Politicians then take that report and interpret it as an absolute call to do everything the report says - even the contradictory things.
IPCC AR4, results were finalized by the government. Well, according to East Anglia's Mike Hulme. Just one little example.
Do you think for one second that Pachauri doesn't have an agenda? He's all but said those exact words...its not about science anymore is it?
Have fun!
Exactly. The data has always been there, as is all the data for peer-reviewed science. Show me a scientific field that has been as open as climatology. Any criticism leveled at climate scientists could be leveled at other scientists.
The real kicker is that these cowards will have one of a very few lines when the crap actually hits the fan. They'll claim that they were tricked and didn't know any better; they'll claim that they were always advocating for the global climate change position in the first place (as we've seen from Glen Beck, documented history that is true has no bearing on what he claims. So they could all claim that, despite their words being recorded and written, that they were indeed for the environment all along).
It's sick and mightily disturbing that these deniers are actively trying to destroy the scientific integrity and method that has benefited them and the rest of humanity. They're only interested in raping the Earth and getting more stuff for themselves. These are people that kick and scream against any scientific thought and yet when crap happens, they're the first ones clamoring for science to come and save them, and for the very scientists that they've pilloried to come and help them out of the jam that they were warned against by those same men and women they've hated and tried to destroy (and in some cases succeeded in destroying).
Your use of the word "retard" is especially useful to your rant. I have stopped using that word since I was in grade school. I discovered how hurtful and unfair that word actually is.
You use global warming and global climate change as the same thing. Which is it? Enlighten us with your vast knowledge on this subject since you feel the majority of your fellow countrymen are "ignorant".
You say when crap happens we will be calling on the same scientists to help us. I will be calling someone that can actually do something. Climatologists can only tell us something might possibly in the worst case be wrong. They can crunch some numbers but that doesn't actually help the world or even my backyard. Calling on them for help is like calling on Obama to stop an oil leak in the gulf.
Deniers are not the ones that destroy the scientific integrity. It is impossible to destroy integrity from the outside. Either there is integrity or there is not. The insiders are the ones that have been operating in secret and not allowing outside reviews. The insiders have been using the questionable hockey stick theory to further their agenda. Integrity isn't something you have for public display, it is something you have when no one is watching you.
If it makes you feel better, we can switch to "Palin-American".
You mean if they can't you accuse them of creating the crisis to impose fascism?
I am just pointing out that asking a politician to do engineering work is not going to work. Calling on a climatologist to help grow crops in adverse conditions isn't going to work.
You are really sensitive when Obama is mentioned.
No, I just know when right-wing trolls are being intellectually dishonest. You know that the GOP party line is blaming Obama directly for the oil spill, and yet you're still playing concern troll.
But the perception of one's integrity can be smeared and tainted regardless of how strong that personal integrity actually is. We've seen that done here against Jones, Mann and others. That's clearly what dyklep was saying.
What do you think the peer review process is? All published scientific data has undergone peer review by outsiders who are qualified to review it. There was no "operating in secret" beyond protecting their work prior to publication.
Those climatologists exercised that kind of integrity very admirably. Unfortunately, the perception of it was dishonestly attacked and they will suffer from those unfair attacks for the rest of their careers. I only wish those who launched the dishonest attacks could be made to suffer similarly, but I doubt that we'll see that happen.
Section 1.5 #33 from the Russell report
There are still problems the report points out. Statistical uncertainties were not taken into consideration. The published reports do not include uncertainties so they appear to show setteled science at 100% certainty. This shows arrogance, not science.
If the attacks were dishonest, why are there numerous concerns in the Russell report? When the scientists are operating as agents for political operatives they need to act in a way that keeps them above the fray. In this case there was enough evidence to question the process.
Since you want to reference the Russel report, let's look at a few of the more significant nuggets:
It goes on and on like that. The handful of little criticisms you cited have no relation at all to the quality of the data or conclusions of those scientists or their work. They certainly don't support any of the most commonly heard attacks on climate science that were a result of those stolen emails.
The one had nothing to do with the other. Virtually all of the attacks charged that in one way or the other that those climate scientists were skewing data, hiding data (the report makes it clear that the source data was ALWAYS available), subverting the peer review process and basically committing professional fraud. ALL of those charges were refuted in the report. The attacks WERE dishonest.
You're assuming a conclusion that isn't in evidence. They were NOT "operating as agents for political operatives." That is simply another dishonest smear.
One person commented and said that he stopped reading their take on it after the word "thorough", which was like the 4th word in their multiple paragraph story.
He said that because he was asserting that it wasn't possible that the report was "thorough".
Of course, the report WAS thorough.
And, as a great comeback, the blog hosts said that clearly that poster has a problem with multi-syllable words!
No kidding. Peer review science is not an end in itself. It only sets a minimum standard for scientific discussion and inquiry. Without it, science would look like an opinion board of a website, with junk science receiving as much weight as good science. Science and our understanding of the material world would not advance.
You mean because both can warn us before we do stupid self destructive stuff in the name of standing up to "Socialism"?
They can if they get the clueless Beck zombies to attack scientists to the point that they can't actually do their work.
Answer me, what do we do about global warming now?
If things are as dire as they have been portrayed, we are a long, long, long way away from fixing the problem. Far behind schedule too, especially if you believe Al Gore.
Somebody better come up with an answer soon, no energy bill, no amount of windmills, hybrid cars, or carbon-credits will both sustain our current lifestyle and change current climate warming trends.
Is there a realistic answer out there?
So, the destruction of data, the bullying of editors of scientific journals, the corruption of the peer review process and the promotion of unverified and unverifiable conclusions as 'settled science' constitutes scientific 'rigor and honesty.'
Good luck convincing anyone of that whitewash claptrap.
The problem that Jones, Mann et al have is that, like Nixon, they didn't destroy the incriminating evidence.
Climate 'science' has zero credibility with anyone who will think.
And your link for this?
>>So, the destruction of data, the bullying of editors of scientific journals, the corruption of the peer review process and the promotion of unverified and unverifiable conclusions as 'settled science' constitutes scientific 'rigor and honesty
Except *none* of this happened, as the report points out. Do you think just repeating false claims make them true?