Climategate Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TWA

New Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
5,354
Reaction score
2
How do you like dem apples now?

'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty - CNN.com

London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.

The scandal fueled skepticism about the case for global warming just weeks before world leaders met to agree a global deal on climate change at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last December.

The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," Russell said.

Read the full report

The 160-page report did however find that the CRU scientists had failed to display "the proper degree of openness" when it came to dealing with public requests for information.

"They had not shown sufficient openness in the way in which they responded to requests for information about what they were doing, about the data that they were processing, about the stations that they were analyzing, so on," he said.

Q&A: 'Climategate' explained

In November 2009, the integrity of the CRU and its research were called into question after the publication of more than 1,000 emails, dating back to 1996, to and from scientists employed there.

Particular attention focused on one e-mail from the unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, which referred to a "trick" being used on data submitted to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1999.

Jones wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ... to hide the decline."

The 'Climategate' emails

The review found the figure supplied for the WMO was in fact misleading, given its "subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment Report)."

It said: "We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain."

Of the language used by the CRU scientists, the report said that it was generally "informal, using slang, jargon and acronyms."

In his submission, Jones told the review that "the word 'trick' was not intended to imply any deception, simply the 'best way of doing or dealing with something.'"

The review found, "crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behavior that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional."

Do you believe in global warming?

In a statement after the report's release, Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, expressed hope that report would put an end to the "wilder assertions" about the climate science community.

"We hope that commentators will accurately reflect what this highly detailed independent report says, and finally lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated," he said.

He announced that Professor Phil Jones, who had stood down as head of the CRU during the review, had accepted a new post of Director of Research at the unit with immediate effect.

In a statement, Jones said he was "extremely relieved" the review was over. "We have maintained all along that our science is honest and sound and this has been vindicated now by three different independent external bodies," he said.

In March, a British parliamentary committee cleared Jones of hiding or manipulating data. A separate review in April by Lord Oxburgh found no evidence of impropriety, but said the scientists involved in the e-mails had been disorganized.

Climate scientist Michael Mann, who was referred to in Jones' email about "Mike's Nature trick,' said he hoped Wednesday's report would put the "bogus, manufactured scandal behind us."

"Human-caused climate change is a reality, and it's about time we get on to a meaningful discussion about what to do about it," he said.

In early July, Mann was cleared of any wrongdoing relating to the e-mails in a separate investigation by Penn State University.

Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at London's Imperial College said: "It seems to me that we've had a lot of reviews, and yet again the science has come out as remarkably robust. However, it is clear that lessons have to be learnt about the conduct of that science."

Muir Russell, chairman of the latest review, referred to the CRU as being in the "eye of the storm" in generating data necessary to address the issue of climate change.

He said times had changed since the unit started 30 years ago and scientists needed to be wary of the new arena of comment on the internet.

"Science is no longer done as it were amongst consenting scientists in private, producing scientific papers that only they discussed and only they understood. And instead it becomes part of public debate," Russell said.

"One of the things that's really driven that is what they call the blogosphere. It's the fact that there are lots and lots of challengers and critics who get out there and discuss, argue, make suggestions, call for changes and the scientists find themselves in that debate," he said.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Weave has fallen! TKO!!!!!
 
I still question the whole global warming thing. I have seen no definite proof and with how much money is on the line I kind of feel like these reports are comming from "used car salsemen"
 
I knew it was only a matter of time before the truth came out. Now let's see how long it takes for us to sit down and discuss what to do about it. *shrugs*
 
In my mind, global warming is still a theory, not a fact. I am all for environmental integrity and conservation. I think man is capable of causing irreparable damage to the planet with poor decisions. My hope is to give the next generation a decent place to call home. Global warming certainly seems possible, but is not 100% proven to me yet. I do support legislation to curb chemical waste and pollution.
 
If you ever have any doubts, just attend a local environmental awareness class, bio ecology etc at a local or adjacent college. Usually, I don't think they can teach courses for a motive so sometimes the discussions presented are not one sided.

One of the most obvious symptoms that something is happening, to me, was the Ozone depletion in the antarctic. They have the charts out on many respectable sites.

Antarctic Ozone Hole
m-ozone-ozone_hole-l.jpg


note that the ozone depletion is depicted by UV intensity wavelength, which is what the colors represent.
 
I am not disupting that the earth is warming up. I am disputing the cause of it. I am not convinced that it is completely man made.
 
AndyE9503 said:
I am not disupting that the earth is warming up. I am disputing the cause of it. I am not convinced that it is completely man made.
Click to expand...

that's right. That's my stance. The global warming is NOT caused by man. It's simply a case of natural phenomenon that we do not understand yet.
 
I have very hard time to believe about global warming that caused by man or not. *rub my head*
 
Jiro said:
that's right. That's my stance. The global warming is NOT caused by man. It's simply a case of natural phenomenon that we do not understand yet.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced it is completely from something we do not understand yet. :lol:
 
I doubt anyone is saying everyone needs to go green or hell comes to rape us. I don't think anyone at the moment in time has the resources to prove who or what causes the problems unless all scientists make a joint effort across the globe and devote to the research without bias, which is a problem.

The more economical approach to the issue is - whether or not the earth is heating up or not, are you going to do something about it?
Conservation, downsizing, saving on minuscule objects? Seems to be more of a personal preference. I don't impose what's right or wrong to anyone, it just feels plausible to be more economical if you can.

Saywhatkid has got the approach correctly. Even if you don't believe in global warming, you can always do something to prevent side effects from things we are doing that have been proven to have adverse effects on the ecology.
 
naisho said:
Saywhatkid has got the approach correctly. Even if you don't believe in global warming, you can always do something to prevent side effects from things we are doing that have been proven to have adverse effects on the ecology.
Click to expand...

Global Warming and Pollution are 2 completely different issues. It is still unknown that those 2 issues do correlate with each other. What saywhatkid said above is about localized pollution - something that has an immediate and visible cause-and-effect relationship on your surrounding.

ie - illegal dumping in our local lake would cause an adverse effect on our local water system. driving a car that spews heavy smoke (due to broken catalyst system) would make us choke.
 
Jiro said:
Global Warming and Pollution are 2 completely different issues. It is still unknown that those 2 issues do correlate with each other. What saywhatkid said above is about localized pollution - something that has an immediate and visible cause-and-effect relationship on your surrounding.

ie - illegal dumping in our local lake would cause an adverse effect on our local water system. driving a car that spews heavy smoke (due to broken catalyst system) would make us choke.
Click to expand...


They may be different in a sense to you, but they are related as adverse on the ecology. It is well known that O3 depletes in the stratosphere.

Many examples can be seen most often from human activity in the east coast. Sulfuric content found from coal mines have been traced to acidic gases (SOx, NOx) and rains. Not to mention chlorofluorocarbons and hydrocarbons. H2SO4 pH measured in rainfall tests show this. It is the reason to why there has been regulation on installing scrubbers for production facilities.

Here is an example to observe how a pollutant would cause warming. It is well known that automobiles produce carbon dioxide, monoxides, nitric oxides as the result of combustion. When the NO reacts with O2 and water molecules in the air, it forms NO2 - Nitrogen Dioxide.

This reaction is mostly occurring in the lowest altitudes, or in other words, the troposphere. Once it reaches the strato and mesospheres, UV-B/ UV-A penetrates the NO2 that has climbed up and becomes HNO3 - nitric acid. Particles can also delve into PANs which is a complicated process I won't be going into.

As a result, it becomes photochemical smog while the UV continues to exhibit its rays on the finalized product. What happens next? The UV heats up the smog, which in turn can amplify the heat. The terminology associated with photochemical smog and its temperature effects is called temperature inversion.

The thing I want to clarify with this example is, it hasn't been linked or proved to global warming - as we don't know if it spreads to across the globe.
But we do know that it affects, or in other words, 'locally' warms (or rains acidic hell) on the temperature in the local area it's found in.

There were some air quality tests done not too recently on Los Angeles air, the EPA found particles in them from China's production factories. What does it mean? Well.. you tell me.
 
Jiro said:
that's right. That's my stance. The global warming is NOT caused by man. It's simply a case of natural phenomenon that we do not understand yet.
Click to expand...

Solar Maximum?
 
Steinhauer said:
Solar Maximum?
Click to expand...

What's that? Without searching it up, never heard of it in any of the eco or chem courses I've taken to date.

How does it or does it not affect the earth?
 
naisho said:
What's that? Without searching it up, never heard of it in any of the eco or chem courses I've taken to date.

How does it or does it not affect the earth?
Click to expand...

I meant to say opposite of Maunder Minimum .... sorry.
 
naisho said:
What's that? Without searching it up, never heard of it in any of the eco or chem courses I've taken to date.

How does it or does it not affect the earth?
Click to expand...

to Earth... not much but it's extremely harmful to Earthlings.
 
naisho said:
They may be different in a sense to you, but they are related as adverse on the ecology. It is well known that O3 depletes in the stratosphere.

Many examples can be seen most often from human activity in the east coast. Sulfuric content found from coal mines have been traced to acidic gases (SOx, NOx) and rains. Not to mention chlorofluorocarbons and hydrocarbons. H2SO4 pH measured in rainfall tests show this. It is the reason to why there has been regulation on installing scrubbers for production facilities.

Here is an example to observe how a pollutant would cause warming. It is well known that automobiles produce carbon dioxide, monoxides, nitric oxides as the result of combustion. When the NO reacts with O2 and water molecules in the air, it forms NO2 - Nitrogen Dioxide.

This reaction is mostly occurring in the lowest altitudes, or in other words, the troposphere. Once it reaches the strato and mesospheres, UV-B/ UV-A penetrates the NO2 that has climbed up and becomes HNO3 - nitric acid. Particles can also delve into PANs which is a complicated process I won't be going into.

As a result, it becomes photochemical smog while the UV continues to exhibit its rays on the finalized product. What happens next? The UV heats up the smog, which in turn can amplify the heat. The terminology associated with photochemical smog and its temperature effects is called temperature inversion.

The thing I want to clarify with this example is, it hasn't been linked or proved to global warming - as we don't know if it spreads to across the globe.
But we do know that it affects, or in other words, 'locally' warms (or rains acidic hell) on the temperature in the local area it's found in.

There were some air quality tests done not too recently on Los Angeles air, the EPA found particles in them from China's production factories. What does it mean? Well.. you tell me.
Click to expand...

right. All examples you mentioned... it's the localized pollution so as you said - it hasn't yet been linked to global warming.

what works at micro level may not work on macro level.
 
Jiro said:
right. All examples you mentioned... it's the localized pollution so as you said - it hasn't yet been linked to global warming.

what works at micro level may not work on macro level.
Click to expand...


It's a part of what the fuss on global warming is about.. if all cities across the world are doing the same thing. Say if every single city became a bustling metropolitan zone and produced noxious fumes on a daily basis just like our big cities.. Is that enough to be considered global?

It is hard to keep track of many forms of pollution (or human activity that alters the atmosphere in this case) mostly because it is a tedious task, just like telling a scientist in the lab to trap all and box all your personal CO2 exhaling in a room, when there's other people in there breathing at the same time.

What we can tell though, are specialized particles that can get traced to their production facilities. See page 24 of this book for the China reference I mentioned.

If we can trace 25% of Los Angeles' air has byproducts from China, who knows how it would be if other countries could detect the smog that blew over from LA?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top