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.
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.
The CRU was criticized for the way they handled freedom of information requests and for a culture of secrecy.
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.
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.
Additional summaries from
Desmogblog : Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons
RealClimate : First CRU inquiry report released