Climategate' scientists didn't manipulate the data after all, UK House

[ed. note - CM1] Originally posted 2010-03-30 20:31:14 -0400. Bumping to get this a few more views.

'Climategate' scientists didn't manipulate data: lawmakers

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—“trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

Remember that the controversy over Climategate was timed perfectly to disrupt and divide the members meeting during the Copenhagen conference.

COP15 - 7 to 18 December 2009

November 20 2009 - Climategate: Warmist conspiracy exposed?

Immediately following this media driven narrative were calls to defund Climate Research, that it was a hoax, we had calls for the UN to be shut down and Al Gore arrested.

Lord Monckton: Shut Down The UN, Arrest Al Gore

The CRU was criticized for the way they handled freedom of information requests and for a culture of secrecy.

U.K. Panel Calls Climate Data Valid

But the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons did fault scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and its director, Phil Jones, for the way they handled freedom of information requests from skeptics challenging the evidence for climate change.

The British House of Commons who conducted this review looked at the terminology most controversial, including using 'trick' to describe a data analysis method.

Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data.

This is a breaking development, so I will finish with this link to a Climate Skeptic blog owned, resourced and operated by News Ltd, owned by News Corp the same owners of Fox News. Because the very first line of argument will be that the British House of Commons have somehow been compromised.

This from a posting back in 2006.

Two reports on the cost of climate change. Guess which gets reported?

The first came from the House of Lords committee on economic affairs, which grilled experts from around the world, and concluded:

Research suggests that, in terms of percentages of world GNP, monetised damage is relatively low, even for warming of 2.5oC. The damages are not evenly spread. In general, developing countries lose more than developed economies. Some models suggest no real net damage to rich countries.

The saddest thing about these attacks for me, is the fact that people who have dedicated their lives to trying to determine the cause and consequences of man made emissions of carbon dioxide, are driven to despair by our media, public relations spin experts, hell bent on sensationalizing every subject to win the 24 hour news cycle.

'Climategate' Professor Phil Jones 'considered suicide over email scandal'

For a very good analysis of the background behind SwiftHack, Mogmaar has posted this at DeSmogBlog
Climategate: An Autopsy

Additional summaries from

Desmogblog : Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons

RealClimate : First CRU inquiry report released

No votes yet


I will allow myself an unqualified 'yeehaww!' in response to this story!

I'm a scientist with friends and training in areas that overlap and are allied to the sciences needed to study climate change.  I know the kinds of language that scientists must use in making inferences and analysing the data these people have to work with. 

And I know that the language of science doesn't translate elegantly into the language of quarterly profits and energy marketing and policy advocacy.  

It is language made for abuse by corporate propagandists. Against cashflows measured in quarterly terms, scientists must establish certainty of events that are measured on timelines of centuries and millions of years. 

Who's going to win that ad campaign?

Negative two hundred and seventy three degrees Celsius is zero degrees Kelvin.  That is an absolute that everyone learns in high school (I think?) but, even to discuss something that is so elemental as 'absolute zero', scientists must hem and haw and hedge. 

That is simply the nature of the real world, of Nature. 

Thanks for this breaking news!  It will be spun mercilessly as you've already shown, but maybe global distress is substantial enough to beat back the profiteers?


post. I always read, but rarely comment. (this is just so ya know that I stopped by and read.)