Police Close Climategate Investigation

ananyo writes "The Norfolk Constabulary has closed its investigation into the November 2009 release of private emails between researchers at the Climatic Research Centre at the University of East Anglia in Norwich after failing to identify those responsible. Despite not being able to prosecute any offenders, the police have confirmed that the data breach 'was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU's data files, carried out remotely via the internet.' The investigation has also cleared anyone working at or associated with UEA from involvement in the crime. The hacking resulted in the release of more than 1,000 emails and shook the public's trust in climate science, though independent investigations after the breach cleared the scientists of wrongdoing."

Comments

messenger

[polar red]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Re:messenger

[polar red]

It's not an ad hominem to search for a suspect who commits a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Re:messenger

[polar red]

PROOF! AGW can not be invalidated, so people try to attack the scientists. Ad_hominem

"Cleard them of wrongdoing"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a scientist blatantly falsifying data to prove their research valid and important cannot possibly be called "wrongdoing" when there are currently a record number of scientific journals being retracted for doing exactly the same thing.

Re:"Cleard them of wrongdoing"

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't 'falsify' anything.

What they did do, was use blatantly unreliable data in the form of tree-ring width as a proxy for temperature because it matched 'expected' values for the historical periods they had blanks in, even though it didn't match the 'expected' values for the periods after they have an accurate record (and they had to 'hide' it).

That's not falsifying. That's worse. They were lying to themselves, too.

Re:"Cleard them of wrongdoing"

[cpu6502]

Oh and I see the other group that cleared Mann was Penn State University..... same people who cleared Sandusky of any wrongdoing. We can really trust their word too.

Re:"Cleard them of wrongdoing"

[Anon-Admin]

I will bash the scientists involved. I have read all the e-mails and was appalled at what I saw.

Blatant attempts to hide data/loose FOAI requests. This in and of it self is a major red flag in my book.
A suggestion that they could stack the deck of pier reviewed journals in an attempt to stop publication of dissenting opinions and findings.
A suggestion that they could identify who was reviewing there paper for a journal and influence the outcome.
Suggestions of using bad data to fill in holes in the existing data.
Suggestions that findings which are contradictory to the established belief be "fudged" to be more inline with other papers.
The use of questionable mathematics to smooth temperature graphs.

There may have been no questionable wrongdoing, but from the e-mails it really looks like there could have been.

As to them being "ultimately cleared them of wrongdoing" Sorry, an internal investigation is worthless. That is like a scientist doing the pier review on his own paper and approving it, or his lab assistant doing the review and approving it. There is a reason it is sent out to others to review and a reason the reviewers are kept secret. There suggested attempt to circumvent this methodology not with standing.

Re:"Cleard them of wrongdoing"

[gtbritishskull]

People on the left don't assume that scientists never do anything wrong. We just believe that peer review (sorry, you're a rightwinger so I will provide you with a link so you can find out what it is) is an effective form of weeding out bad science. This is similar to how you believe the free market is effective at weeding out inefficient business. Once those "christian scientists" go through the peer review process (or actually learn what the scientific method is - see null hypothesis), then intelligent people might actually start listening to them.

Uncertainty = Doubt

[Stiletto]

Nothing will sway the small minds of Climate Change Deniers, for whom uncertainty is the same as doubt.

Exxon CEO admits fossil fuels cause AGW

[arthurpaliden]

And it is even from FoxNews.

Re:Their conclusion is unlikely.

[dkleinsc]

How the heck does FOIA (a US law directed at the US executive branch) have any applicability to a university in the UK?