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.'"
It seems like scientists in this one field get angry if you challenge their conclusions. I'm not sure why they've adopted an Imperial "you dare challenge us, mortal?" attitude over this. I always assumed the more people who ask questions, the better chance you have of finding out problems.
If you think a Dept. of Commerce report under a President who has a vested interest in this climate change issue is going to be objective and fair, you're nuts. Personally, I think there are a lot of shenanigans going on on both sides of this issue. A lot of scientists are groupthinking and leeching onto grant money by exaggerating global warming and its effects. And a lot of right-wingers are lock-stepping to defend big business with the contention that dumping tons of shit into the atmosphere every day isn't having ANY effect.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Of course they would clear the fiddling of climate data, if they didn't, how do you think the Western governments could get away with screwing more money from taxpayers to prop up the crooked bankers and politicians?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
As a european, i really cant understand how anyone with a sane mind can challenge the idea of climate change.
It appears only right wing nuts and "scientists" bought of with corporate money are fear mongering about climate socialism etc.?
Are you all watching FOX News only or why do so many belief this FUD?
Meanwhile, the number of scientists expressing significant issues with that '95% confidence level' continues to swell, most recently Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, who maintains the blog Climate Etc.
The real problem is the mass suffering in third world countries will be less mitigated as we throttle back technological advancement to set policy in line with shoddy politically-driven characterizations of the science (i.e. like truncating, splicing, and smoothing two data sets to 'hide the decline' or to put it more precisely, hide correlation issues with a proxy). Not to mention the blow that science will take when it's announced that "whoops, there's no crisis."