New report exonerates climate researchers

Feb 24, 2011 By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- A Commerce Department investigation has found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of federal climate researchers whose e-mails were leaked in the debate over global climate change.

The report Thursday from the department's inspector general is the latest to exonerate whose communications with the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia were stolen and made public in 2009. The department reviewed all 1,073 leaked e-mails, but focused on 289 that involved scientists.

Mary Glackin, NOAA's deputy undersecretary for operations, said she welcomed the report since "none of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA's understanding of climate change science."

Climate change skeptics have sought to characterize some of the e-mails as indicating scientists failed to follow proper procedures or altered data. Investigations in both England and by the National Research Council and Pennsylvania State University in the United States have also concluded that there was no indication of scientific impropriety.

Climate change skeptics have sought to characterize some of the e-mails as indicating scientists failed to follow proper procedures or altered data. Investigations in both England and by the National Research Council and Pennsylvania State University in the United States have also concluded that there was no indication of scientific impropriety.

The new report did question the handling of some freedom of information requests by NOAA and asked the agency to review the circumstances under which funds were transferred to the British researchers. Glackin said the money was used for workshops that assisted the governments of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam in improving their climate forecasting work.

Climate change, also referred to as global warming, has raised concerns in recent decades as data continue to show an increase in average temperatures around the world. Climate experts are concerned that continued warming could affect agriculture and the environment, spread diseases and cause other disruptions in society. The vast majority of atmospheric scientists attribute the change to gases released into the air by human activities such as industry and internal combustion engines.

Explore further: Arctic offshore drill company enters guilty pleas

More information:
NOAA: http://www/noaa.gov

IG report: http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2011/001688.html

3.7 /5 (6 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak

Dec 04, 2009

(AP) -- The United Nations will conduct its own investigation into e-mails leaked from a leading British climate science center in addition to the probe by the University of East Anglia, a senior U.N. climate ...

Watchdog: UK university hid climate data

Jan 28, 2010

(AP) -- The university at the center of a climate change dispute over stolen e-mails broke freedom of information laws by refusing to handle public requests for climate data, Britain's data-protection watchdog said Thursday.

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

Dec 10, 2009

(AP) -- Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

Nov 23, 2009

(AP) -- A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's ...

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate

Nov 21, 2009

(AP) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online - stoking debate over whether some scientists have ...

Recommended for you

New challenges for ocean acidification research

22 hours ago

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

23 hours ago

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 25

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Howhot
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2011
See. The climate deniers were making stuff up just to politicize the debate. They illegally hacked into the email servers of scientists where debate is like looking a sausage being made, took a few morsels out of context to discredit the science being developed. Now we find out that the Koch brothers, are funding a bunch of people on the internet that are directed to spread propaganda to discredit the science and study of global warming.

Interesting world these people live in.
ted208
1.2 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2011
A Commerce Department investigation has found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of federal climate researchers whose e-mails were leaked in the debate over global climate change.

Howhot you are so cold on this one, you really need to get over the Koch brothers and see the real dirty tricks being played out of the White house, EPA and all the Eco retards foundations in the USA alone. Obama's leftist Chicago mafia Henchmen put an arm bend on the inspector general and instructed the Commerce Department to find nothing wrong. Your AGW crowd have milked over $36 Billion out of the US taxpayers for a power trip and a trace gas with a whole bunch of lies and data manipulation. Another whitewash for you warmist, no lie or cover-up is to big or small. I thought Bush was bad but he's an angle compared to Obama's administration, it is the most wasteful,corrupt and deceitful group in the history of American politics and this man will make us all poorer. It's the way of all socialist elites!
Doom1974
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2011
Socialist?? I like your education bud......Leftist?? what a joke!!!!! Really shown your metal here...
Moebius
4 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2011
The problem the climate skeptics have is that global warming is a fact, climate change happening now is caused by our activities and they are being constantly jerked around by cheering articles that say the skeptics are right and then having to defend their being discredited later. It's a wonder they aren't all going skitzo, or are they?
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2011
Climate change, also referred to as global warming,
Climate Change and Global Warming are not the same thing.
Global Warming is one of the factors that can cause Climate Change. At the same time, Climate Change is a factor that can cause Global Warming.
The terms are linked but they are not the same.
kaasinees
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2011
Socialist elites? That statement is contradictory.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2011
Wow @ted208! You do know that Koch has funded a number of "Blog Spinners" to attack environmentalists and climate research. I call them propagandists. Unfortunately spin is a euphemism for lie.

On a science debate, I see the "Hockey Stick" as totally valid, and a very logical result of data presented. Sure there are details that one could critique. You deniers, claim just the opposite given the same input and make really silly claims as to why that is. Many just flat out lies. Global Cooling anyone? It doesn't take to much to see that something is amiss with planet earth, and it all is so coincidental that happens during the rise of man in the industrial boom. It's like 1+1 = 2. It's that simple, a logical flow. Its the scientific process.
Howhot
3 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2011
I want to comment just a second on "Global Cooling" and what that is all about. Basically the energy from the sun that reaches earths surface has been falling slowly. The average global temperature should be cooling, and it was until something like 1980. Earth "should be" cooling. Its not. Instead, we have had some of hottest record breaking global average temperatures since the thermometer was invented. Across the US, we broke record after record of High temps. And who can forget Moscow, Russia. The evidence is all around us.
I expect about the same this year only worst.

kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2011
Climate change, also referred to as global warming,
Climate Change and Global Warming are not the same thing.


Why is this post rated a 1? If you dont agree then prove me wrong,
Howhot
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2011
Climate Change and Global Warming are not the same thing, but they certainly are related, correlated and co-dependent variables to each other.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
kaasinees: To answer your question on the comparison of climate change and global warming I am quoting from Wikipedia.

"For current global climate change, see Global warming."

http://en.wikiped...e_change

This is subtle but important. When you say that climate change and global warming are different, please be specific. What Wikipedia points out is that the Earth is warming and that is the present driver of global climate change. There have been periods in the past where the earth was cooling and that was climate change. However, to try to disconnect present climate change and global warming is disingenuous because our climate is changing at the present time because of global warming. To disconnect those in the present situation is not correct just as it would have been incorrect to disconnect global cooling from the global climate change at the onset of the last ice-age.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
Just because current climate change has a trend of Global Warming doesnt mean the words mean the same thing which the article states, doesnt make sense at all.
thermodynamics
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2011
kaasinees: How about looking at this as a Venn diagram (which I will be able to talk through but not draw here). There is a set relationship between the set of Global Climate Change and the sub-set of Global warming. Note I am using global in both of these. If there is global warming there is climate change because global warming is a subset of climate change. If there is climate change there can be - but it is not necessary that there be global warming. There could be global cooling. So, global climate change is a set including global warming. Global warming is a subset of climate change. They mean the same with global climate change being less specific than global warming and including other subsets.

That is the reason that they indicate the same with one being more specific. If I have global warming I have climate change and those are the same. If I have global cooling and I have climate change those are the same. Both are more specific states of climate change
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2011
Climate Change and Global Warming are not the same thing, but they certainly are related,


This is what i said, yet all my posts get a 1 in this thread.

kaasinees: How about looking at this as a Venn diagram

NO.
The words both have different definitions, they mean two completely different things, which the article states otherwise. Where do you fail to see this logic at all?
Shelgeyr
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2011
A Commerce Department investigation.
Really.

Well I guess that settles it then.

No, wait! I have an idea! If they would like a crack at obtaining a real exoneration, let's have a real trial!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2011
"A federal government inspector general has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes. This has been confirmed to Senate offices. It will not be released to the public for some time because the investigation is ongoing.

Read more: http://dailycalle...G2SabOuM
"
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2011
A federal government inspector general has revealed prima facie proof that the so-called independent inquiries widely if implausibly described as clearing the ClimateGate principals of wrongdoing were, in fact, whitewashes.
Then what is it? If it is such important and first hand evidence, why didn't he produce it for the article and make it public record?

Ah that's right, because it's bullshit, as usual. Nameless Federal employee is said to have made a statement to a blogger, and you take it as fact with no source, no evidence, and not even a name of the responsible party.

This is the equivalent to listening to a stranger in a bar tell you about wrestling with dinosaurs.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2011
ryggesogn2: So, how long do you think it will take for this new scandal to hit the streets? I am so excited (sarcasm) I can barely control myself. I have seen dupes like you make wild claims and then just drop off when nothing happens. How about some particular day? What do you say that if something happens within one month you will come on here and rub my nose in it. If it does not, can do the same for you? It seems like a fair bet and it seems like I can hardly lose. Are we on?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2011
I emailed Mr. Swenson's source. The sourced article's author replied with this:
between the information in the piece, McIntyre's posting of the interview excerpts, and your email handle, I'm surprised you don't have all of this already. read UVA pleadings in Rector and Board of Visitors v Cuccinelli, boasting the contributors to the pressure campaign that, elsewhere in the public record, the University has cited as its reason for reversing course and fighting the AG.

Christopher C. Horner Senior Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L St, NW 12th Floor Washington, DC, 20036 +1.202.331.2260 (O)
So he cited a court case, but no source. Then I did some investigation and determined why, there isn't one. I'm going to have to assume that the evasion was either to cover up the fact that there isn't a source, or that the source is highly impeachable. The court case itself is available by searching for Rector and Board of Visitors v Cuccinelli. I've asked C for clarification
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2011
ryggesogn2: So, how long do you think it will take for this new scandal to hit the streets? I am so excited (sarcasm) I can barely control myself. I have seen dupes like you make wild claims and then just drop off when nothing happens. How about some particular day? What do you say that if something happens within one month you will come on here and rub my nose in it. If it does not, can do the same for you? It seems like a fair bet and it seems like I can hardly lose. Are we on?

We will have to see if the NOAA report is published with Eugene Wahl's transcript that conflicts with the Penn State report.
http://climateaud...excerpt/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2011
Another email back from Mr. Horner. Here is mine, and his reply.
Can you tell me which Inspector General this was, and which Senate offices received confirmation? I understand you may not have access to the actual proof itself, but when speaking of souorces like this it's increasingly helpful to have names and accurate information with which to confront undue accusations...
Horner:
Neither I nor WUWT nor McIntyre have faced such undue accusations.

Another dodge and ignoring the question.

If he continues to reply, or eventually gets to the answer I will reproduce the correspondence here.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2011
So here's the final on the topic:
See attached for orgs UVA cites as pressuring it.
YUep, attached the pdf that he already linked. Nothing new here.
The source is obviously the NOAA inspector general and his interview of Wahl as McIntyre posted.
But McIntyre didn't post the interview, he posted select pieces of it, which I addressed above. Secondly, the NOAA AG position does not exist. There is no individual person who serves as the IG for NOAA. The IG from NOAA is randomly selected from the pool provided by the GAO. Meaning, Mr. Horner is a liar, just like you Mr. Swenson. I've told him as such, and within the month you should see your main source article pulled.

Basically, blow me. Your lies cannot stand up to reality, ever.
I see for example Wahl claims the article was inaccurate but doesn't state where or how.
Except for when he states that 98% of the interview is truncated from the record. Shame, denialists, shame!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2011
Thou protesteth too much.
(And sooo emotional!) Not very scientific or rational.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2011
(And sooo emotional!) Not very scientific or rational.
That would be almost exactly the insigth I gained about your argument when I attempted to source your stance back through the original author. An appeal to false authority, an appeal to morality, and an appeal to emotion...

Too bad none of those points change the fact of the situation, which is: you have a deep seated inability to learn anything outside of your bubble of preconception.

Thou protesteth too much.
Me thinks thy knowledge of Elizabethian English and Shakespearian prose is as poor as your various sources' knowledge of journalistic integrity.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2011
@ryggesogn2, "(And sooo emotional!) Not very scientific or rational." Spock: "Well, when you argue logically with someone that is irrational like you, rules of logic sometimes do not apply". So, your a creep dude. That is the only logical conclusion I have.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.