‘Climategate’: Parliament Backs the Science, if Not the Scientists
EmailThe science in the so-called "climategate" scandal was well-done; the scientists themselves did not do so well. That, roughly, is the conclusion of a panel convened by the British House of Commons to investigate whether Prof. Phil Jones and his colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia — CRU for short — did wrong in the leaked e-mails last fall about their work on global climate change. You'll recall more than a thousand e-mails were hacked — and skeptics of the scientists' work pored over them, seeing them as evidence that researchers were hyping their findings on global warming and hiding contradictory evidence.
The report, by Parliament's Science and Technology Committee, is HERE, and in their conclusions (look HERE) they're pretty clear: "The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced."
"Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington [Prof. John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser to the British government], that 'global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity.'"
On the other hand, the panel comes down pretty hard on climate scientists for not being more open in their work. Yes, it says, the scientists may have felt beleaguered by critics; there was even an apparent effort by one climate skeptic to pepper them with freedom-of-information requests and slow their work. But the committee’s chairman, Phil Willis, said in an opening statement that the scientists' “culture of non-disclosure” was “reprehensible.”
This from the report itself: "A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable."
Phil Jones temporarily stepped aside as the head of the CRU while the case was being investigated. There are more investigations yet to be completed. And in the meantime (see a previous post) public opinion on climate science has taken a hit: the Gallup organization reports that 30 percent of political conservatives think effects of global warming are already happening, down from 50 percent two years ago. Self-described liberals have stood their ground at 74 percent.
Various reports from Britain say this investigation was a pretty big deal. But does it settle anything? Not likely.
Mt. Everest Deaths: More Climbers at Risk? 
TechBytes: Facebook, No Keyboard? 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
What a white wash. They spent one day investigating and came to this conclusion. The fix was in before they investigated. We need a real and independent investigation into this obvious conspiracy to silence GW ciritics.
Posted by: j011254 | March 31, 2010, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm
j011254
You claim that “The fix was in before they investigated.”
Then you say “We need a real and independent investigation into this obvious conspiracy”
So YOU have already decided how YOU think the investigation should go. That seems to make you at LEAST as biased as they are!
Will your definition of a “real and independent investigation” be one that comes out with the answer you want?
Posted by: jock59801 | March 31, 2010, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
j011254 | Mar 31, 2010 1:12:24 PM: For your information, the Science and Technology Committee of the UK House of Commons has been investigating for over a month – not 1 day – called witnesses including Dr. Jones and others. Since you, as many other paranoid “conspiratists” will not believe anything from anyone that contradicts your paranoia, just ignore all facts and figures except those which seem to support your beliefs. While many like you cheered “Snowmaggeddon” as your “smoking gun” against climate change, Canada had by far its mildest winter EVER. In my province of Quebec, winter temperatures – Dec.21 – March 21 – have been 7°F higher than normal. We had a stretch of 33 consecutive days over average. BTW, I will not tout that this proves AGW, as I, as opposed to YOU, know the difference between weather and climate.
Posted by: treblig56 | March 31, 2010, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Meanwhile, Phil Jones has admitted in a BBC interview that Global Warming has been exaggerated……BBC – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?…… Phil Jones: So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 (3) periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other….. BBC – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?…… Phil Jones – Yes, but only just. …BBC – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?….. Phil Jones – No… The trend this time IS negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
Posted by: Meab | March 31, 2010, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm
Just a political stunt.
ONE DAY isn’t even enough time to formally address the issues to be investigated, much less actually investigating them in any detail.
If this is the kind of Peer-Review process that was used to vet this research, then none of the results are trustworthy.
Posted by: e-man | March 31, 2010, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
How can this even be a debate? If you don’t believe every climate scientist in the world than open your eyes. There is a major weather related emergency every month. We are screwed and our best solution in cut co2 by 17% in 2020. We don’t have that long! Things are bad and getting worse. The best thing is if we focus all our money into clean renewable energy we win in terms or jobs, environment, energy cost, national security, and so on. It makes so much sense it will never get done.
Posted by: DSchles33 | March 31, 2010, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm
“If this is the kind of Peer-Review process that was used to vet this research, then none of the results are trustworthy.”—-You honestly think this is the first time this research has been reviewed? You need to pick up a science journal or two. Everything in there is peer reviewed or it is simply not published. We have decades of research from a dozen different disciplines written by thousands of scientists. What actual evidence do you have to support your skepticism?
Posted by: cicclinton | March 31, 2010, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
Of course. This religion has invested thousands of millions of dollars to push carbon taxation. If it works it will be a fantastic investment bubble.
Think about it. Drilling and refining oil takes money and resources. What if you got payed and you did not have to spend resources to do it (getting paid not to produce and also enabling you to hoard resources). This is what is this fraud is all about.
The consequent rise in the prices of gas and fuel are additional goodies that go along with this swindle.
Posted by: Alvaro | March 31, 2010, 11:13 pm 11:13 pm
DSchles33 – there have been a major weather related emergencies often throughout history. Cycles of drought and flood, cold and heat. Every spectacular weather event gets blamed on climate change, as if climate could be measured by the weather of a week or year. And also there is the the nonsense of sea level rise: “The sea levels are rising!”, wail the AGW crowd…yes, they’ve been rising since the last ice age, for the first half of the thousands of years since then even faster than they are now. The truth is that the major dominating greenhouse gas on this planet is water vapor, carbon dioxide is of no account next to its influence. And we can’t model or predict that. Justifying the “cap and trade” by AGW is a fraud worth trillions of our economy’s dollars over the next ten years, that’s what this is all about.
Posted by: RalphWSiegler | March 31, 2010, 11:59 pm 11:59 pm
GWB’s climate scientists were always correct. It was GWB’s staff who decided to alter the findings to make them more politically correct and more hempful to the corporations who bought him.
Posted by: KsDevil | April 1, 2010, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
j011254
You claim that “The fix was in before they investigated.”
Then you say “We need a real and independent investigation into this obvious conspiracy”
So YOU have already decided how YOU think the investigation should go. That seems to make you at LEAST as biased as they are!
Will your definition of a “real and independent investigation” be one that comes out with the answer you want?
Posted by: jock59801
______________________
Jock
If the scientists, if you can call them scientists, were not trying to cover up evidence that global warming does not exist the hackers would not have found a single e-mail showing they did. The e-mails they found speak for themselves.
They DID organize a conspiracy and you know that as well as I do.
The British Parliament either got bribed or threatened to rule in favor of the AGW scientists, the same as the moderate Democrats in OUR Congress to pass the so-called health care bill.
Posted by: marco | April 1, 2010, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee: “Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason…”
Jct: “find no reason” are the cover-up words for guys looking with their eyes closed. Those with their eyes closed can “see no reason” for anything.
As a “real science” engineer, I’d say it’s the Committee’s scientific reputation that no longer remains intact. Oh right, they never had any scientific reputation to begin with. Opinions of incompetents with their eyes closed. Har har har.
Posted by: KingofthePaupers | April 2, 2010, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm
So YOU have already decided how YOU think the investigation should go. That seems to make you at LEAST as biased as they are!
Posted by: uggboots canada | May 30, 2010, 11:52 pm 11:52 pm
Generally, global warming is a widely accepted theory. However, in this particular situation, the credibility of these scientists has been damaged significantly. As a firm believer in global warming, I feel slightly betrayed by the untrustworthy scientists that hid certain facts that went against his claims. I feel that if scientists would reveal all scientific research with the large amount of data proving global warming as well as the data found that refutes it, then the general public would be able to compare all of the data themselves instead of refusing to trust the scientists who hide the research refuting their claims, Honestly, I do not blame these non-believers of the effects of global warming because they are not provided with all the statistics, just the statistics the scientists want them to see.
Posted by: dbowman1101 | September 13, 2010, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm