HuffPost: 'Climategate' Investigation Vindicates Scientists, Finds Research Reliable

[thebluefood]

ASF, I think it's a shame Christians weren't at the vanguard of the environmentalist movement when it began. We are, after all, supposed to be the stewards of the Earth and to look over the rest of God's creation. Seems like we really dropped the ball there.

Anyway, that was my real complaint about environmentalists; that arrogant idea that they are going to SAVE the EARTH. The other stuff I can get on board with. A lot of it is just common sense.

[Thiebear]

I'll admit defeat based on that article....

but still say the locations they were using across the globe was crap.

[Destino]

Earth has been here for billions and billions of years and we've been here all of, what...6000?

In that short time we've accelerated the extinction rate of plants and animals like nothing the planet has ever seen before save a meteor strike or something of that nature.

[PeterMP]

ICP,IPCC ...eh close enough for govt work obviously:ols:

Congrats on accepting the level of accuracy of the newspapers for science.:evilg:

1. I didn't say I accepted it.

2. It is more accurate, then you appear to accept for yourself.

Yet the ICP report was found to be riddled with errors,faulty assumptions and non-peer reviewed material.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That is certainly how I approach the issue. I don't advocate for cleaner and more efficient technology out of some sort of strange pantheistic love of 'Mother Earth,' but rather because I believe it is God's will that we take care of the planet.

Whether or not global warming is a result of human activity, we need to do something about it if possible. I don't think finding out if we are the cause is even productive. I'll tell you what, the folks in the Pentagon are planning for all contingencies and I don't think they care one way or another why it happened.

I agree, completely, although I think it is helpful to know and understand the causes for a couple of reasons, 1) it is a tool to use against those who would refuse to move to green technologies, it's also information that we can teach our children so that as they grow they can begin to reconsider how they can move off things like coal fired power and other dirty fuels. 2) if we understand the causes we will be better equipped to respond and adjust our own behavior in the future to help reverse the damage that we have caused.

ASF, I think it's a shame Christians weren't at the vanguard of the environmentalist movement when it began. We are, after all, supposed to be the stewards of the Earth and to look over the rest of God's creation. Seems like we really dropped the ball there.

Amen and Amen! I know I dropped it as much as anyone did before as I didn't want to believe it and I dismissed the environmentalists as nuts all while forgetting God's one command to Adam to "tend the garden".

Anyway, that was my real complaint about environmentalists; that arrogant idea that they are going to SAVE the EARTH. The other stuff I can get on board with. A lot of it is just common sense.

Agreed.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll admit defeat based on that article....

:thud:

jus playin'

[Predicto]

I'll admit defeat based on that article....

but still say the locations they were using across the globe was crap.

Holy smoke!

Thiebear once again proves that he may be the only truly openminded poster on the Tailgate. He actually reads things and reconsiders his views.

Wish I could do that.

[skinfan133]

Holy smoke!

Thiebear once again proves that he may be the only truly openminded poster on the Tailgate. He actually reads things and reconsiders his views.

Wish I could do that.

I became a libertarian primarily as a result of discussions on this site over the years. I reconsidered many of my political positions.

For example, at the age of 15 I listened to Rush Limbaugh almost daily, and I thought Sean Hannity was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now I'm reading stuff like the federalist and anti-federalist papers. All thanks to discussions I've had here.

[Thiebear]

Holy smoke!

Thiebear once again proves that he may be the only truly openminded poster on the Tailgate. He actually reads things and reconsiders his views.

Wish I could do that.

When you wrong as often as i am it gets easier.

The station research i mentioned was just the hockeystick stuff, not all of it.

[PeterMP]

Here's a funny story. I was talking about earlier in this thread about amazongate. Appearantly, the right wing blogs are running with the story now that the information about this in the IPCC report is based on a web page, even though it has already pointed out that it came from a peer reviewed paper in Nature.

The comment they find offensive is:

“Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).”

Now, the Rowell and Moore reference is to a WWF report, which technically is against the IPCC rules, but the WWF report references Netstad et. al., 1999, Nature, which is a peered reviewed journal.

which has been pointed out multiple times and multiple places, including:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

Which of course led to the retraction of the original newspaper article (as stated in the 3rd post in this thread).

However, that hasn't stopped the right wing bloggers/editorials:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/10/amazongate-proven-ipcc-based-their-claim-of-rainforest-sensitivity-on-a-probably-sentence-in-a-now-defunct-activist-website/

"Amazongate proven: IPCC based their claim of rainforest sensitivity on a “probably” sentence in a now defunct activist website"

"WUWT readers should make this IPCC folly known at other websites in comments. They wanted a debate, they wanted a retraction, well they got it. Now it is time for them to admit they supported a flawed premise based on shoddy activist driven “science”."

Interestingly, they don't link the WWF report or quote a large section of it in the entire entire Watts section or any other story on Watts dealing with the story. What does it actually say (see the real climate link above for a link to the report)?

""Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.46

Scientists from Woods Hole Research Centre (WHRC) and IPAM (Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia) who have undertaken ground-breaking work on fires in the Amazon, conclude that “in a scenario of increasingly frequent El Niño events, Amazonia is poised to experience catastrophic forest fire events that dwarf the fires of Roraima in early 1998 and of deforestation activity in scale”47"

Now, 46 is the Nature paper. 47 is a web site.

Now, the "conservative" bloggers say:

"It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang – was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group."

"The document cited by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), which it later described, after a full internal inquiry, as a “report”, proved remarkably difficult to track down. Since then, both the WWF and Dr Nepstad have cited other papers in support of their claim – but none of these provided any support for the specific claim about the impact of climate change made by the IPCC."

So they're upset about the 47 reference, but they completely ignore the 46 reference.

The WWF and Dr. Nepstand have referred not to a "other" papers, but to a paper cited directly WWF report (reference 46):

What does the 46 reference say?

Well, for example:

"ENSO-related drought can desiccate large areas of Amazonian forest, creating the potential for large-scale forest fires. Because of the severe drought of 1997 and 1998, we calculate that approximately 270,000 km2 of Amazonian forest had completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil by the end of the 1998 dry season. In addition, 360,000 km2 of forest had less than 250 mm of plant-available soil water left by this time (Fig.1b). By comparison, only 28,000 km2 of forests in Roraima had depleted soil water to 5 m depth at the peak of the Roraima forest fires."

So a large chunk of the rain forrest has low soil water levels that are tied to forrest fires after a single drought season as compared to another large fire.

Sounds EXACTLY like the point the IPCC report is making.

And yes the wording of the web page is similar to the IPCC report, but that's because it is all based on the same work, done by the same people who acted for the sources to both works, which ended up being published and a peer reviewed journal (in this case Nature).

Essentially, the same information was reported two different places (a web site and Nature) based on the work of the same people. The WWF report cites both of them. The IPCC report cites the WWF report, and the "conservative" bloggers first acted like the WWF report was the final say in the matter and ignored the underlying references in it. Then when the point was made that there are underlying peer reviewed papers in the WWF report, they chose to ignore them and pretend like only a non-peer reviewed web site is referenced.

**EDIT**

I should point out the original news paper article wasn't retracted SIMPLY for what I said above. It in fact went further and even claimed the WWF report didn't contain information that it did as outlined in the link provied in the 3rd post.

[stickyshooZ]

A third and final inquiry into the climategate scandal has exonerated everyone involved and declared that there is no question over the science behind man-made global warming – even though, like its predecessors, it has not investigated the science.

The so called “independent” inquiry into scientists at The University of East Anglia’s Climate research Unit found that “Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”.

It further noted “We did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC.”

The full report can be downloaded here.

The university’s vice chancellor, Edward Acton, said the report had exonerated his staff and he hoped it would end the “conspiracy theories and untruths” that have dogged the unit, reports Reuters.

Of course this conclusion is hardly surprising given that, as we have previously reported, the so called “independent” investigation was led by Sir Muir Russell – a vehement supporter of the notion of anthropogenic global warming.

While absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science, Russell is intimately involved with The Royal Society of Edinburgh.

The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards.

This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.

For the climategate inquiry, Russell constructed a panel of “experts” that share exactly the same views, clearly contradicting the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.

Russell has called for “a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in the CRU scientists.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  
• [/url]
  
  

Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the scandal, will now be reinstated in his role at the CRU, despite the fact that the investigation concluded that some of Jones’ data was misleading and that he failed to act openly in response to questions about climate data lodged under Britain’s freedom of information laws.

“We found a tendency to answer the wrong question or to give a partial answer,” the report said.

Indeed, among the thousands of emails that were leaked from the CRU were communications from Jones specifically asking his colleagues to delete information from their computers that may have called the science behind their findings into question.

Yet, as reported in the London Guardian today, “extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.”

The report also parroted the findings of The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee Report (PDF), released last March after just a single day of oral testimony. Like the government’s report, the “independent” inquiry found nothing sinister in Jones’ use of the words “hide the decline” and “trick” with regards to data on temperature changes obtained from tree ring research.

The independent inquiry even used the exact same wording as the government report to dismiss the notion, claiming that the use of the word “trick” may have been shorthand for a “neat mathematical approach” to ejecting erroneous data.

The STC pulled this explanation from testimony by the CRU itself, which stated:

…as for the (now notorious) word ‘trick’, so deeply appealing to the media, this has been richly misinterpreted and quoted out of context. It was used in an informal email, discussing the difficulties of statistical presentation. It does not mean a ‘ruse’ or method of deception. In context it is obvious that it is used in the informal sense of ‘the best way of doing something’. In this case it was ‘the trick or knack’ of constructing a statistical illustration which would combine the most reliable proxy and instrumental evidence of temperature trends.

Scientist Steve McIntyre, who is mentioned over 100 times in the leaked emails has consistently explained how this explanation is insufficient and falls flat on its face.

On his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre notes:

“Contrary to [the University of East Anglia's] claims, there is no valid statistical procedure supporting the substitution of tree ring proxy,”

“This is absurd.” McIntyre added, “The trick was not a “neat” way of handling data, nor a recognized form of statistical analysis. The trick was a clever way of tricking the readers of the IPCC 2001 graphic into receiving a false rhetorical impression of the coherency of proxies – a point understood at the beginning by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, but now misunderstood due to continued disinformation.”

McIntyre points out that at no time did even the CRU itself contend that any of its data was erroneous, so to conclude that it had to dispose of such data is ludicrous:

In addition, their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be erroneous” is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was “erroneous” – the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up – but that doesn’t make it “erroneous”. It only means that the data is a bad proxy – something that was concealed from IPCC readers.

McIntyre submitted notes to the Science and Technology Committee on this very detail of the matter, however, his detailed description was either completely ignored or disregarded.

The idea that the “trick” was not to conceal data that was out of step with the scientists warming thesis also falls down when you consider that the code within the CRU’s climate models prove that temperature numbers were “artificially adjusted” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.

This information was leaked along with the inflammatory emails referring to it and provides the real smoking gun. However, predictably, there has been no mention of the coding in the any of the inquiries.

The Russell review said it was not misleading to omit part of the tree ring temperature series but the process should have been made plain in the graph which showed global temperature rises, and which was used in an influential report published in 1999 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

Again, like the parliamentary report before it, the Russell review also dismissed further allegations leveled at the CRU, including the suggestion the emails proved the scientists were actively subverting the peer review process and operating within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.

Those charges arose following disclosure of Phil Jones’ comment to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University: We “will keep them out (of journals) somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” in reference to scientific papers they disagreed with.

The leaked emails highlighted CRU scientists routinely referring to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needed to be kept out of the public domain.

As the London Guardian notes, The Russell report described such actions and descriptions by Jones and the CRU as “robust” and “typical of the debate that can go on in peer review”.

“In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review.” Fred Pearce writes. “And it investigated only two instances where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions as IPCC authors to sideline criticism.”

Once again it will be left to the alternative media and blogs to expose another whitewash report, given that the vast majority of the corporate mainstream media is running with headlines along the lines of “Investigation Clears Climate Scientists” and “Warming Science Vindicated”, headlines that will be repeated ad infinitum by warmists, carbon trading scam artists and eco-fascists everywhere.

Another separate “independent” inquiry, led by Lord Oxburgh, former chair of the science and technology select committee, also cleared the CRU scientists of any wrong doing in April. However, its findings have since been questioned given that Oxburgh admitted that it also “didn’t investigate the science.”

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-whitewash-complete-third-inquiry-clears-everyone-involved/print/

[techboy]

(well okay, eventually the planet will go somewhere other than its "normal" movements, but with respect to environmental issues).

Does "swallowed by the expanding Sun" fall under the category of Global Climate Change?

[PeterMP]

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-whitewash-complete-third-inquiry-clears-everyone-involved/print/

"

“Contrary to [the University of East Anglia's] claims, there is no valid statistical procedure supporting the substitution of tree ring proxy,”

“This is absurd.” McIntyre added, “The trick was not a “neat” way of handling data, nor a recognized form of statistical analysis. The trick was a clever way of tricking the readers of the IPCC 2001 graphic into receiving a false rhetorical impression of the coherency of proxies"

"

Note, above McIntyre is talking about PROXIES here not real global temperatures.

"McIntyre submitted notes to the Science and Technology Committee on this very detail of the matter, however, his detailed description was either completely ignored or disregarded.

The idea that the “trick” was not to conceal data that was out of step with the scientists warming thesis also falls down when you consider that the code within the CRU’s climate models prove that temperature numbers were “artificially adjusted” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s."

Note, in the above they switch to REAL global temeratures.

That is what McIntyre said (that the the trick about hiding the decline was about hiding the decline in the tree ring PROXIES (not real global temperatures)) does NOT match the following section (which asserts that the "trick" was to hide a DECLINE in global warming (e.g. temps)).

(There was code that was captured talked about an artificial adjustment to temperatures. It isn't at all clear what if anything that code was ever used for or what affect the artificial adjustment would have had (i.e. would it have hid a "decline".))

And mean global temperatures are higher now than in the 1960's.

**EDIT**

McIntyre is right. The trick was to make the proxies seem like better indicators of global temps then they are, at least recently.

Of course, this was already known by everybody that pays attention to the field as the relevant figure in which the "trick" was used was subjected to an investigation by the National Academy of Science and a group appointed by a committe of Congress in 2006 each of which issued independent reports.

**EDIT2**

Though I will point out that the "trick" had nothing to do with statistical analysis. It was simply used to generate a figure. There is no evidence that the data that was used to create the figure with the trick carried out was used in any statistics.

[Seabee1973]

ASF, I think it's a shame Christians weren't at the vanguard of the environmentalist movement when it began. We are, after all, supposed to be the stewards of the Earth and to look over the rest of God's creation. Seems like we really dropped the ball there.

Anyway, that was my real complaint about environmentalists; that arrogant idea that they are going to SAVE the EARTH. The other stuff I can get on board with. A lot of it is just common sense.

I dont know what the percentage is but im sure a lot of christians do care about the enviroment they just do it on a personal level. I believe with the 2 parents working most parents take the easy way out and not recycle and do their part.

[Seabee1973]

Well, I prefer the term "Old-World Creationist"; but I guess that's the same in the eyes of some.

That picture is hilarious, by the way.

I prefer young earth creationist

[twa]

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopReaders of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

[@DCGoldPants]

and so begins the battle of "Which scientist do you believe?" and the research on who Patrick Michaels is along with what he's said in the past.

3....2.....1....blammo

[AsburySkinsFan]

I wonder how long it will take before there are personal attacks and questions regarding the credibility of the independent investigation team.

:fortune:

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopReaders of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

[Ax]

:fortune:

Of course, you have never stooped to such a level.:evilg:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Of course, you have never stooped to such a level.:evilg:

jus sayin' yo.

[twa]

jus sayin' yo.

Yes it is always better to ignore facts and ignore questions:)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes it is always better to ignore facts and ignore questions:)

All I was doing was predicting the future, and quite accurately so IMO.

This is the SOP for the bloggosphere and the intertubes:

1) find some minuscule part of some report that you have a fault with, then use that entirely irrelevant "fact" to cast doubt on the whole report.

2) scream for an independent review of the report

3) if the independent review disagrees with your position on the matter;

....a) question the credibility of the independent review board

.... hold fast to your original opinions and beliefs about the initial report.

[Ax]

jus sayin' yo.

Yeah, but patting yourself on the back for preemptively stating that someone else would practice what you preach, is hardly worthy of your self worship.

jus sayin', yo momma!

[Thiebear]

All I was doing was predicting the future, and quite accurately so IMO.

This is the SOP for the bloggosphere and the intertubes:

1) find some minuscule part of some report that you have a fault with, then use that entirely irrelevant "fact" to cast doubt on the whole report.

2) scream for an independent review of the report

3) if the independent review disagrees with your position on the matter;

....a) question the credibility of the independent review board

.... hold fast to your original opinions and beliefs about the initial report.

So you were ALL OVER the Judge about his owning stock..

No matter when he got it, when he sold it.. and everything else was secondary.

And then you post THIS?

nice to have it both ways isn't it, make every discussion easier.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So you were ALL OVER the Judge about his owning stock..

No matter when he got it, when he sold it.. and everything else was secondary.

And then you post THIS?

nice to have it both ways isn't it, make every discussion easier.

So you're saying I didn't accurate predict what was going to happen?