Investigations stemming from so-called climategate, most particularly those Climatic Research Unit e-mails at the University of East Anglia, keep coming up empty or close to it. Parliament, the Royal Society, the university’s own internal sleuthing, and more can’t nail the researchers – from Phil Jones on down.
See a pattern here? Either this climate science conspiracy to get lots of gov’t grant money and derail the world economy is even better organized then feared or…does not exist. And one could say the same about the drumbeat of reports – including the one from the Dutch government in the news yesterday – that the IPCC may have messed up some little things but not the big story of climate change as serious business.
The latest, carried by a slew of agencies, is that a third and largest inquiry has failed to find evidence that scientists at the CRU and their correspondents withheld evidence that global warming is exaggerated or pure hokum, or punished and blackballed people who thought as much. It found a few lapses from full civility and cooperation with the public – including sceptics insisting on seeing more of their data. It apparently found no conduct that rates higher than a blip on the dastardliness scale. But the researchers did let the brayers of doubt get under their skin and acted badly in kind. Or so it appears from press accounts.
Here’s an example. Reuters‘s Peter Griffiths reports that the latest investigation, commissioned by the university, said that while the scientists at times were unresponsive to outside queries from skeptics or even employed misleading data at time, none of it was enough to undermine the case for manmade global warming. He quotes high the reports finding that the CRU suspects’ “rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” The school’s vice chancellor, Griffiths further reports, hopes the report will end the “conspiracy theories and untruths” about the unit’s ethos.
Other stories:
- AP – Raphael G. Satter: “Climategate” inquiry mostly vindicates scientists ; Pretty good summary of the accused scientists’ truculence in the face of criticism, and also of the underlying honesty with which, the report concludes, they did their science. As example: the CRU bunch joked about hiring a hit man to take out a critic. They didn’t actually do it. Translation: it was e-mail bar talk.
- AFP: British climate scientists cleared of dishonesty ;
- Time Magazine (blog) Bryan Walsh: Climategate Researchers Cleared – But Don’t Expect the Controversy to End ; Walsh makes clear that the arena for controversy is not in science. He rounds up coverage of this an other similar recent news, and puts the argument in a sociological and political context.
- Guardian (UK) Fred Pearce: Climategate: No whitewash, but CRU scientists are far from squeaky clean ; Pearce focusses on the ways that truculence and weariness prompted poor behavior by the scientists and he demands that they stop it. He seems to evade the issue of whether the researchers’ behavior, on any significant scale, undermines the broad implications of climate change science.
- Financial Times – Fiona Harvey: Climate scientists react with relief ; She finds a fellow who loudly calls on sceptics to apology. To quote Walsh in the top bullet up there, not bloody likely.
- NYTimes – Justin Gillis: British Panel Clears Climate Scientists ;
- Guardian – Leo Hickman: Climate scientist vilified by sceptics ‘relieved, vindicated’ and back at CRU ; A personal glimpse of the man who, a few months ago, said he considered suicide as the personal attacks mounted.
- Bloomberg – Alex Morales: ‘Climategate’ Scientists Cleared of Manipulating Data ;
Personally, I think the best report on this whole thing mystifyingly labels itself as satire. I’m trying to find the satire in it. Smells like smart analysis. This is at a site called Unconfirmed Sources, by Chuck Terzella.
Grist for the Mill: The Independent Climate Change Em@il Review Report ;
Leave a Reply