'Newspaper retracts "climategate" story, months too late'

[Oddball]

Ain't it great when you can have an "investigation" and exclude everything and everyone but the subjects of that investigation?

No, really, judge...The man was dead when I got there!

 

[midcan5]

Climategate' E-mails: Third Independent Panel Clears Global Warming Researchers

Final ‘forensic’ UK report on emails vindicates climate science and research underlying the Hockey Stick

Muir Russell investigation "did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC" and says of CRU, "Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

'Findings'

"Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. [Emphasis is added by the panel.]

In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it.

On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias.

The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.

On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail.

On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 [the Fourth Assessment] to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld.

15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."

'Climategate' E-mails: Independent Panel Clears Global Warming Researchers - Science and Society

Climate Progress

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We learned Jones has been cooking data his whole career, Mann still has his one tree ring and there's still no Repeatable Laboratory Science behind Manmade Global Warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

 

[Oddball]

There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity. The degree of cover up in both cases is an arrogant in-your-face statement that we are the power and are not answerable to anyone. Their cover up almost belittles the ones they are investigating.

Lord Oxburgh, a member of the House of Lords, chaired the first investigation. His bias and self-interest is barefaced and makes his appointment shameless in its temerity. He is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, which believes carbon capture is potentially a trillion dollar industry. As James Delingpole reports “Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.” It’s as if they said who stands to gain the most by whitewashing what happened. The Club of Rome connection is most telling, because I have documented their role in initiating, identifying, and pursuing CO2 as the basis of capitalist destruction of the planet.

Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climategate' E-mails: Third Independent Panel Clears Global Warming Researchers

Final ‘forensic’ UK report on emails vindicates climate science and research underlying the Hockey Stick

Muir Russell investigation "did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC" and says of CRU, "Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

'Findings'

"Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. [Emphasis is added by the panel.]

In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it.

On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias.

The overall implication of the allegations was to cast doubt on the extent to which CRU’s work in this area could be trusted and should be relied upon and we find no evidence to support that implication.

On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail.

On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 [the Fourth Assessment] to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld.

15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science."

'Climategate' E-mails: Independent Panel Clears Global Warming Researchers - Science and Society

Climate Progress

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, the wingnuts have once more succeeded in making fools of themselves as the investigations have totally exonerated those at East Anglia, and the same for Mann.

The denial of reality is so damned obvious, given what the scientists are stating concerning AGW.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just.

 

[Charles_Main]

[I read your articles and there was no retraction... Care to explain that????

Your articles cite other statements from the London Times and claims they have "effectively retracted" their climtategate story... WHat does "effectively retracted" mean?

Well going by what their article says it means anything they wish it to mean.....

The usual band of fools and the usual non replies and simpleminded circle jerk of idiots. Should one expect more from people who know as much about the issues as a worm knows of walking. Sorry following the story line lost you guys.

When one reads the wingnut replies one comes to understand why Sarah and Glenn are the intellectual minds for the 'Idiocracy of the Right.' Whacked out partisan ideologues require simple words and simple ideas, it fits the narrative in their heads.

From article. If you need help with the big words, please let me know. If the concepts are over your heads, I'd suggest a return to grade school or maybe a tutor. Mommy may be able to help too.


It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:

"But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.

It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change."

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

OK once more....

Please point to where the retraction is... Even in the little paragraph you cited where is the retraction of climate gate.....

The rainforest was not a central argument in climategate... Look at the dates of the rainforest article.... 2007... yeah climtategate was this past year... And if that were not enough the two things are unrelated completely...

Now unless you are completely ignorant of reality here, you at least can tell the difference between the two things..... What your sources did was take a correction made by the london times and decide to call it "effectively retracted" which adding the word "effectively" on the front makes the following word dubious at best.. Its an age old trick to keep from being called a liar and asked to prove something..

A correction on a story 2 years ago about rainforest's is in no way shape or form a retraction of a climate gate story from a few months ago.. Now you just got shamed by rag in your OP article... Learn to spot dubious words which give ambiguity to a claim.. Words lie "effectively retracted" are the same as saying they almost retracted but didn't ....

How old are you people who buy this crap? Don't any of you actually READ any thing beyond the headlines anymore??

The sad truth is way to Many people on both sides of the political spectrum do not read past the headlines any more.