GOP inquiry finds no evidence that ‘climategate’ scientists misused data

GOP inquiry finds no evidence that ‘climategate’ scientists misused data

www.rawstory.com

The probe was requested by Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the environment committee, who has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

The e-mails were stolen in late 2009 from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia. Inhofe and other climate change skeptics suggested it was proof of a conspiracy to corroborate a near-unanimous consensus among scientists that the earth is warming due in part to human activities.

The investigation is the latest in a series of prior probes that exonerated the scient

(visit the link for the full news article)

The ongoing saga and controversy of "climate change" carries on...

Was there indeed a "climate gate" here amongst scientists with vested interests?

Is this latest "exoneration" a continuance of a cover-up?

Is this whole subject a clever ruse being dreamt up by Elitists as another way to impose a "global carbon tax" against the world's "little people"?

Or is there a legitimate basis and fact that MAN is creating a measurable change in the earth's climate and weather?

Any way one looks at it, this latest "investigation" is sure to bring this whole subject and its ramifications back to the table I'm betting...

Discuss please...

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think the data shows an obvious correlation between the byproducts of industrialization and changes in climate, particularly warming at the poles. There is no doubt in my mind that these changes are occurring and are primarily caused by modern society - though other factors can also contribute.

Now what politicians do with that, and how they spin it is another matter. Is a carbon tax a good way to combat this? No. Instead, how about the government quit paying people to do nothing and instead pay them to work on building a renewable energy infrastructure. The technology is there, and despite what the mega oil giants tell us, there is plenty of renewable energy to power the planet once the infrastructure is in place.

But that would make sense..

It seems to be a battle of who presents the most convincing arguments.
Follow the money.

I like what he has to say on this whole matter...

reply to post by pirhanna


So how do you explain the fact that all the other planets in our solar system are undergoing the same changes as earth if industrialization is the cause of the climate change. Along with the increased volcanic / quake activity. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus have all had major events occur to their bodies within the past several years. So the whole climate change thing, is them knowing whats going on and knowing its not anything we the people caused, yet sell it to us that its our fault and we need to pay for our sins. Stop buying the bull#

I'm beginning to question the reliability of RawStory as a source. Please correct me if I've gone wrong but RawStory says the scientists were cleared of all wrong doing. The article presents information taken from a New York Times piece. When I clicked through to the Times piece I saw that it closed with Sen. Inhofe saying that the report did not clear the scientists and there was an apparent violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

Please look at these two articles and tell me what you think makes the most sense and I'd be happy to discuss it.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


The GOP did not conduct this probe. It was conducted by the global warming kings of the Obama administration. The GOP will conduct a review from an independent committee soon.

I thought that this matter was going away after this report in July 2010:

Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming

Muir Russell report says scientists did not fudge data, but they should have been more open about their work
Full Text of the Review here: www.guardian.co.uk...

The main findings: www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by charles1952


My take is that both articles state there was no apparent misuse or manipulation of data. The closing remarks by the Senator in the NYT article states that the only apparent "wrong doing" was that they did not release some data for public analysis. IMO, that is different from manipulating data of which, as the articles say, no evidence could be found.

edit to add: You're right this is confusing information. I don't necessarily think it's Raw Story's fault (NYT also claims the same thing). At the end of the article Sen. Inhofe is paraphrased as saying, "that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists “engaged in data manipulation.”

So, on one hand, we have the Commerce Department’s inspector general saying there was no misuse of data and at the end of the article, Inhofe (who asked the inspector general to perform and investigation) says there was. These two statement contradict themselves.

Soooo...someone is misrepresenting the report's findings, from what I can gather.

reply to post by nunya13


Dear Nunya13,
Great to see you again! (Well, I'm not actually seeing you, but I don't know what word to use.)

The reason I thought the New York Times story left open the possibility of data manipulation was the second to last paragraph:

"But Mr. Inhofe said the report was far from a clean bill of health for the agency and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists 'engaged in data manipulation.'"

It seems this might be a case of both sides choosing the portion they want and running to the press to try to sway public opinion.

Again, thanks for checking up on me and spending the time to set me straight.

I SEE YOU FOUND MY REFERENCE, THANKS.

The story is a little miss leading. The GOP didn't do the research they just requested that a government investigation be done. It was done by the commerce and they did it by talking to NOAA head Jane Lubchenco and her staff about what they had really meant in the emails.

This was a foregone conclussion as she has been barred from testifying on behalf of the EPA's new attempts to regulate CO2 to congress because of the emails. No the EPA's star witness can testify we need more regulations limiting freedom.

This was about as unbiased as asking a rapist to lead the injestigation of themselves.

reply to post by charles1952


Sorry, you might have read my post before I made an edit in which I state that you are actually right. There is conflicting information in the NYT article. It's hard to say.

Good to see you too! I've just been on and off. I have periods of wanting to know every little thing that is going on to periods of not being able to take it anymore!