• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

Jack Hays said:
You are in denial, and lying.
Click to expand...

More facts

Some news organizations have misreported critical aspects of the stolen email story. There is no evidence scientists did anything with temperature data they weren't already doing openly in peer-reviewed papers.

At this time, there is no evidence that scientists "fudged," "manipulated" or "manufactured" data. These unsupported claims, based on taking the emails out of context, are being promoted by long-time anti-science opponents of climate change legislation. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the University of East Anglia and Penn State University are separately looking into the contents of the stolen emails to assess these claims.

While the emails have raised some concerns, the email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones wasn't "hiding" anything that wasn't already being openly discussed in scientific papers. He was using a "trick"—a technique—published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

This email exchange from 1999 seems to refer to scientists examining past climate data and communicating with one another about it. In particular, Jones is talking about how scientists compare temperature data from thermometers with temperature data derived from tree rings. Comparing that data allows scientists to derive past temperature data for several centuries before accurate thermometer measurements were available. The global average surface temperature since 1880 is based on thermometer and satellite temperature measurements.

The "trick" is actually a technique (in other words, a "trick of the trade") used in a*peer-reviewed, academic science journal article*published in 1998. "Hiding the decline," another phrase that has received much attention, refers to another technique used in*another academic science journal article. In any case, no one was tricking anyone or hiding anything. Rather, this email exchange shows scientists communicating about different ways to look at the same data that were being discussed at the time in the peer-reviewed literature. Later the same data were discussed at length in a 2007 IPCC report.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
Climategate happened. It was an antiscience lie.

Yu might need a "British" vpn.

BBC iPlayer - Climategate: Science of a Scandal

The edited highlights

YouTube
Click to expand...

Climategate10years_scr.jpg


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​
 
vegas giants said:
More facts

Some news organizations have misreported critical aspects of the stolen email story. There is no evidence scientists did anything with temperature data they weren't already doing openly in peer-reviewed papers.

At this time, there is no evidence that scientists "fudged," "manipulated" or "manufactured" data. These unsupported claims, based on taking the emails out of context, are being promoted by long-time anti-science opponents of climate change legislation. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the University of East Anglia and Penn State University are separately looking into the contents of the stolen emails to assess these claims.

While the emails have raised some concerns, the email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones wasn't "hiding" anything that wasn't already being openly discussed in scientific papers. He was using a "trick"—a technique—published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

This email exchange from 1999 seems to refer to scientists examining past climate data and communicating with one another about it. In particular, Jones is talking about how scientists compare temperature data from thermometers with temperature data derived from tree rings. Comparing that data allows scientists to derive past temperature data for several centuries before accurate thermometer measurements were available. The global average surface temperature since 1880 is based on thermometer and satellite temperature measurements.

The "trick" is actually a technique (in other words, a "trick of the trade") used in a*peer-reviewed, academic science journal article*published in 1998. "Hiding the decline," another phrase that has received much attention, refers to another technique used in*another academic science journal article. In any case, no one was tricking anyone or hiding anything. Rather, this email exchange shows scientists communicating about different ways to look at the same data that were being discussed at the time in the peer-reviewed literature. Later the same data were discussed at length in a 2007 IPCC report.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails | Union of Concerned Scientists
Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:
Climategate happened. It was an antiscience lie.

Yu might need a "British" vpn.

BBC iPlayer - Climategate: Science of a Scandal

The edited highlights

YouTube
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]Anyone who wants to rebut claims of exoneration [/FONT]can use this Ross McKitrick paper for reference.
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="]Anyone who wants to rebut claims of exoneration [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.4664&rep=rep1&type=pdf"]can use this Ross McKitrick paper for reference.[/URL]
Click to expand...


What....no more cartoons? Lol
 
The orthodox AGW advocates avoid the OP article as a fly avoids the swatter.
 
We still don't know who stole the emails in the first place.
 
vegas giants said:
Yours is tin foil hat conspiracy. Lol
Click to expand...

Reposted from the OP:


The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
 
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University*cleared scientist Michael Mann*of wrongdoing.Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."A*UK Parliament reportconcluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.The*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded*there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.The*National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
vegas giants said:
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.Factcheck.org debunked claims*that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.Politifact.com rated claims*that the emails falsify climate science as "false."An*Associated Press review of the emails*found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Click to expand...

Yes the world has warmed about a degree since the 19th century.
How much of that is man-made and is it a problem? The current
science that addresses those two questions has a credibility issue.

The so-called hockey stick chart was a central issue. And the
removal of the medieval warm period is still an issue. Here's a
graphic overlay of what was done:

image.png


Sources:
From the IPCC's AR1 Report Chapter 7 figure 7.1 page 202
From the IPCC's TAR Report Chapter 2 Figure 2.20 Page 134

I see that GISTEMP's Land Ocean Temperature Index for October
has just been published. It will be interesting to to see how many
monthly entries have been changed from what they said in the
September release.
 
Steve Case said:
Yes the world has warmed about a degree since the 19th century.
How much of that is man-made and is it a problem? The current
science that addresses those two questions has a credibility issue.

The so-called hockey stick chart was a central issue. And the
removal of the medieval warm period is still an issue. Here's a
graphic overlay of what was done:

image.png


Sources:
From the IPCC's AR1 Report Chapter 7 figure 7.1 page 202
From the IPCC's TAR Report Chapter 2 Figure 2.20 Page 134

I see that GISTEMP's Land Ocean Temperature Index for October
has just been published. It will be interesting to to see how many
monthly entries have been changed from what they said in the
September release.
Click to expand...

Six official investigations.


Six.



There was no climategate
 


[h=1]A Miracle Just Happened[/h]Posted on 17 Nov 19 by RICHARD DRAKE • 1 Comment
The hero of Climategate on 17th November 2009 had a tremendous sense of style, as recounted by ‘Dominic’ on Climate Audit almost two months later: I find the initial posting here with the link to the FOIA.zip file at RC almost divine. It was on a thread called “Miracles and Strip Bark Standardization” which had … Continue re
 
vegas giants said:
Six official investigations.


Six.



There was no climategate
Click to expand...

This is typical of the yeasayers. They don't really treat this as a scientific debate in search of the truth. For them, this is a political matter and their only objective is to win. They take an adversarial pose and will distort and cherry-pick the facts, conveniently forget to provide any arguments that go against their conclusions. And whan all else fails, they will simply lie to your face.

Who did the investigations - which were really-self-investigations done at the behest of East Anglia and they chose the investigators? Did they have a stake in the outcome? (Trick question - the answer is yes). Maybe the investigators need to be investigated. And then those investigators. We're going to need a lot more investigators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom