Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Cleared of Misusing Global Warming Data
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The NY Times reports that an inquiry by the Commerce Department's inspector general has found no evidence that NOAA scientists manipulated climate data (reg. may be required) to buttress evidence in support of global warming after climate change skeptics contended that e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity. '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,' says Mary Glackin, the agency's deputy undersecretary for operations. The inquiry, requested last May by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, who has challenged the science underlying human-induced climate change, comes at a critical moment for NOAA, as some newly empowered Republican House members seek to rein in the EPA's plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, often contending that the science underpinning global warming is flawed. Inhofe says the report (PDF) 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.'"
Hardly cleared. Sounds like further investigation is needed (and will be performed).
The positive out of all of this is that the "skeptic" side is finally being heard instead of being completely ignored as heretical by the clergy of the Church of Global warming. There's way too much money to be made in all this carbon/green stuff for it ever to completely go away, but at least now we may be more inclined to focus on immediate and concrete issues rather than a wild goose chase.
Had the exposed emails I read been from scientists working in some other discipline, I think there'd be no doubt cast on the accusations of manipulation. I suspect that the huge political and financial agenda behind the so called global warming movement (political control, taxation and the sale of carbon credits) is whitewashing what any reasonable person can read as blatant manipulation of data.
"Is there enough statistically significant clear, objective data that is available to be verified that indicates anything with any amount of confidence?"
Yes, it's a statistical certainty that Senator James M. Inhofe is corrupt.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.