The British climate scientists:
A British panel issued a sweeping exoneration on Wednesday of scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate, saying it found no evidence that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.
The researcher at the center of the controversy, a leading climatologist named Phil Jones, was immediately reinstated to a job resembling his old one, at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. That unit, often referred to by its initials, has played a leading role in efforts to understand the earth’s past climate.
Not that it matters. The damage has been done.
Hunter Gathers
I should have gone into bio-chemistry. I could have developed a virus that kills stupid white people, and solved the world’s problems. But noooooo, I had to waste my time and get a broadcasting degree, which is now worthless.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
Too bad being a pea brain wingnut isn’t a crime.
Alex S.
So how was this story created? Who published what and when? Why this outrage back then?
EDantes
Thank god there’s no global climate change, otherwise it might be god forsaken hot outside right now.
fourlegsgood
Now they’re on to act two – trying to discredit Al Gore.
amorphous
@General Egali Tarian Stuck: No, it’s actually a prerequisite to becoming a Senator from Alabama.
ellaesther
I think it does matter. Not, possibly, in the immediate term, but in the mid-and long-term.
The entire brouhaha was, to my social scientist’s mind, an indication of the fact that very few people understand how science actually works, and to the extent that we got to talk about that, and then these folks were exonerated, I think that’s a good thing.
And at any rate, the people who seized on the exchange as proof of their preexisting worldview were not going to be swayed by rational argument, regardless, and even in stirring up the faux-troversy, they didn’t win over anyone else likely to be swayed by rational argument.
(In other news, it turns out there’s no h in “exonerated.” Good to know).
Kryptik
How many people will remember the verdict 2 weeks from now? Compare that to how many people will remember that ‘Climate Scientists Used Tricks’? Face it, we’re fucked because no one in the media bothers to actually do any goddamned objective reporting. Fox News and the birth of ‘Fair And Balanced’ has fucked us over for decades to come.
@ellaesther:
See, here’s the problem. Those folks who simply used the whole crapshoot to justify their world view and continue on their denial? They make up a not insignificant chunk of Congress, and those who aren’t either are willfully exploiting said folk for their business masters or are so wimp and limp as to sway in the face of the ‘overwhelming voice against the climate hoax’.
By the time the worm turns, and we actually do shit about this, it’ll be too late.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@amorphous: Very well done sir!!
joeyess
As Cokie Roberts would say:
WereBear
The one thing that might help is that people love to be “debunkers.” Provided, of course, that their debunking is correct.
And if we had actual journalism. Instead of “media,” which is what we got.
Dork
So I should be expecting apologies for character assassinations (and wanton lying) from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly, right? Right?
GambitRF
Al Gore is fat and flies around a jet sometimes, and there was an article in Newsweek in 1976 about global cooling.
Ergo, global warming is fake
QED
Michael D.
Questions that need to be answered about this panel that cleared the scientists:
1. We’re there any true conservatives on the panel?
2. Did AEI get to weigh in?
3. Was there a proper balance of climate science opinion?
4. Has anyone on the panel – say, a wise Latina – ever made a comment about wise Latinas?
5. Lesbians. Any possible lesbians?
6. The article states that the report was “not a complete exoneration;” therefore, it is not, in any way, even remotely an exoneration and the scientists are still completely guilty.
7. The report was written by Europeans. Is there a non-European report? If not, why not?
8. Why does the University of East Anglia (which, by the way, sounds Mexican) hate America?
Brian J
Completely off topic, but it looks like the Democrats have caved in to Republicans concerning the special election to fill Byrd’s seat in West Virginia. To which I would like to ask: WHAT! THE! FUCK!?!?!?!?!?!
Unless, of course, as the comments from the Political Wire post indicate, it’s really a move to let Manchin run for the seat without looking shady. Is that the case? Because if not, once again, I need to ask: WHAT! THE! FUCK!?!?!?!?!?!
Kevin
False, sensationalized story: 1A, above the fold
Corrected, objective story: 14A, below the ad for pet-odor stain remover
Brian J
@Kevin:
Were they the ones accusing the British scientists of anything? I don’t remember, but my gut tells me no. It was still a big story, unfortunately, and it makes sense that they’d put it where they did.
twiffer
considering that most climate change denial is, at its core, conspiracy theory, this won’t make a lick of difference. because it will be assumed the panel is in on the plot. that nasty, neferious plot to steal precious government grant money!
GambitRF
@Kevin:
14A in the sports section, next to the WNBA scores
ellaesther
@Kryptik: If this weren’t the actual, physical, genuinely-limited planet we were talking about, I’d say — well, we’ve come so far over the course of our history, there are always forces that want to drag us back but the arc of the universe has truly bent toward justice, we’re on the right path, maybe not our children but their children, etc etc etc.
But as we could truly kill the world while we’re waiting for this section of the arc to bend, I would say you make an excellent point.
Granted, it’s one that makes me want to cry, but don’t let that bother you.
SpotWeld
Serious Journalists will tell you that the very fact that these false and unsubstantiated accusations based on cherry-picked personal emails were talked about by other Serious Journalists is proof enough that Serious Journalists are Serious…
…Seriously.
some other guy
Of course, now every time CRU or Phil Jones or Michael Mann is in the news your “liberal” media will be sure to mention this fake controversy in a way that continues to muddy the waters.
Something like:
The controversial Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia released a new report today detailing what they say will be a century of rising temperatures, tides, and extinctions.
…
In 2009, the Climate Research Unit was at the center of an international scandal when leaked private emails between top climatologists, including CRU director Phil Jones resulted in investigations by universities, governments, and the UN. Though Jones was eventually cleared of wrongdoing, some insist the emails demonstrate that Jones and the CRU are biased.
frankdawg
Don’t worry, next January when there is a snow storm someplace where it snows every winter that will be all the proof we need that there is not global warming.
Pancake
To quote Governor Palin: “Whitewash!”
Svensker
@Pancake:
Is there a Gov. Palin?
Did you mean ex-half-term-governor Sarah Palin? I’m pretty sure she would call it a whitewash, also too it shows ya how those libruls cover up for each other while trying to hurt real ‘murkans but it’s not workin! wink wink.
It could have been her.
amorphous
@Michael D.: The answer to Question 8 is, of course, “Because of our freedoms.”
JohnR
AP headline on Yahoo news:
“‘Climategate’ inquiry mostly vindicates scientists”
mostly.
I can tell an AP story about 70% of the time just from the headline. It’s telling that Reuters hasn’t replaced AP as the main news source in the US.
Paul L.
Including being cleared on preventing skeptics from getting access to raw data and having Obama regime level transparency.
Chyron HR
@Paul L.:
What gave you the idea that Obama has anything to do with this? Did the unemployed woman who runs the GOP say so on Facebook, or did she use Twitter?
lol
@Brian J:
Yes, this is about Manchin getting the seat. He wants to capitalize on his popularity while it’s still high and not give any Democratic rivals a chance to beat him in 2012.
Mayur
@28: Aaaand there we go. So much for actual scientific discourse.
Sincerely, Paul L.: fuck you. Fuck you on behalf of my unborn children, their children (assuming we make it that long), and the millions whose lives are *already being affected* by climate change.
SiubhanDuinne
@ellaesther:
LOL, ellaesther!
Punchy
But Paul, how does the Duke Lacrosse team explain global cooling?
Sentient Puddle
@Paul L.: And yet you glossed over this one…
i.e., the data was still readily available to anyone who wanted it.
slag
@Paul L.: I was unaware that Being Unhelpful to Ignorant Jackasses was a criminal offense. If only I had known that sooner my life of crime may have been averted. Luckily, the BUtIJ cops haven’t caught me yet, and I still have time to make it across the border where I can continue to live out the rest of my life Being Unhelpful to Canadian Ignorant Jackasses.
You won’t take me alive, Mounties!
norbizness
Perhaps they can go down to the RIght Wing Noise Machine Victim Pub and have a wine spritzer with ACORN.
ellaesther
@SiubhanDuinne: Thank you! If my atrocious spelling isn’t good for a laugh (I did, literally, think that there was an h, right there between the x and the o in “exonerate”) well, then, it’s just a blight on my good name.
frankdawg
@Mayur:
Mega-dittos on that big fuck you to (a)PaulL-ing
Unless of course that was just sarcasm in which case well played my good man! Sadly we have crossed the line where it is impossible to tell if we are dealing with a total retard
(and my apologies to those with any genetic, traumatic or disease induced cognitive difficulties whom I mean no disrespect to – as opposed to those with willfully chosen cognitive difficulties whom I mean to insult)
or actually hearing from someone mocking them.
Norwegian Shooter
Anxiously awaiting Walter Russell Mead’s retraction: Now That It’s Over, The Grey Lady Sings:
It’s embarrassing not because it isn’t true, but because it’s old news. WRM should be embarrassed enough to let the Grey Lady sing again.
Bubblegum Tate
@Michael D.:
Now here’s a man who understands how the game is played!
Jong
“Not that it matters. The damage has been done.”
What damage are you refering to? The only real damage is the fact that this group’s work has been disrupted for 6 months pending the outcome of this investigation.
Bender
Funny how if you only interview one side, the CRU, your findings will tend to exonerate that side!
Whodathunkit?
SCIENCE!
gwangung
@Bender: You can download the data yourself and analyze.
You’re pretty much saying “I got nothing.”
Shalimar
@amorphous: Now, now. Shelby and Sessions are the best and brightest white men Alabama has to offer. Sad but true.
Bijan Parsia
Well, at least it is pretty ok at the top. Not brilliant, but the article does use reasonably accurate language.
But the “balance” bit is incoherent:
No sources, and wha huh? I can imagine a path that connects scientific uncertainties to scientific malconduct, but it’s going to be a tough path to hew.
I don’t know what the writer was thinking.
jrg
Stoopid liburls. U all R being indoctrunated by teh liburl sciuntiests.
If U listuned to Rush, U wud no that carbun dieoxide is not a greenhouse gas. U just like teh taxes and want 2 pas more lawz. I hate stoopid liburls.
ciotog
My bold prediction is that this will be a zombie lie for years to come, while the seas boil and the land melts.
On the bright side, more skin cancer for my brothers and sisters of the Caucasian persuasian means fewer Teabaggers.
trollhattan
@Jong:
One needs to appreciate that the professional (i.e., industry-financed) denialists’ task isn’t to disprove or for that matter, even counter-argue human-caused climate change. Their task is to delay action. Every month we do nothing is another month of continued business as usual.
So, a giant kerfuffle over archane points of research that literally nobody in the press or public actually understands constitutes “damage” insofar as it preserves the status quo.
Related and overlooked, the (Murdock-owned) Sunday Times had a complete and devastating retraction of another climate gotcha story that wasn’t. Too bad they didn’t do due diligence before reporting in the first place.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/sunday_times_shamed_by_bogus_j.php
In other news, Al Gore remains fat and Rachel Carson basicallly killed everyone in Africa.
schnooten
To quote the SCOTUS in Gertz: “[T]he law of defamation is rooted in our experience that the truth rarely catches up with a lie.” As true for persons (like ACORN) as it is for global warming, the health care bill, Iraq, torture, etc. etc. etc.
Basically Fox News’s MO; too bad concepts can’t sue.
Sentient Puddle
I got a heads up on the denialist talking points we’d be seeing from this story by reading the comments to this article. As weak as it was (“The review board was staffed by other scientists! It’s slanted!”), the trolling here thus far has been incredibly lame. I’m amazed that denialists are still taken seriously in any way, shape or form. Though I suppose that speaks more to the general level of scientific ignorance we have in the country.
I also found it amusing that the author came back into the comments and had this to say (among other things):
El Cid
If these climate so-called ‘scientists’ hadn’t wanted this negative attention, they wouldn’t have promised that kid dress like a pimp that they would figure out the best climate regions for hookers.
Tonal Crow
@some other guy: You are clearly ready for a job among the Serious People ™.
S. cerevisiae
@trollhattan: Exactly right. They are like lawyers trying for reasonable doubt in the public mind to delay any real action on climate change.
I wish long life on all of them, to see the hell they have wrought.
The Raven
If it made front-page news, and ran as the lead on the television news shows, it might make a difference. They could even do some investigative reporting on the break-in–it was probably a bought-and-paid-for job.
Nah.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Paul L.:
This bullshit pisses me off the most.
THE RAW DATA ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS PLAY. You can download the GHCN data set from here (which includes raw and adjusted data), ICOADS data from here, etc. I’ve done it for myself.
You can argue about data quality, you can argue about discontinuities, you can argue about holes in data coverage, you can argue about the reliability of instrument records, you can argue about error bars, but you CANNOT CLAIM THE RAW DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE.
Not to mention that most “skeptics” wouldn’t have the first clue of how to actually use the data once they got their clueless little hands on it.