Yet another investigation, and yet another clean slate.
The US Department of Commerce Inspector General has written to Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon) pursuant to the Senator’s request for an investigation of the so called “Climate Gate” emails and any related wrong-doing that might have taken place in NOAA’s climate research.
That investigation is complete, and the results are in:
The Inspector General’s report states specifically:
· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] GHCN-M dataset.” (Page 11)
· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.” (Page 11)
· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the IQA. (Information Quality Act)” (Page 12)
· “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.” (..which essentially authorizes federally-funded research data derived from institutions of higher education, hospitals and non-profit institutions to be accessible under the Freedom of Information act)(Page 16)
Most hilariously, Politico noted that one of the items investigated was a satirical image of the Senator himself…(above)
“The IG also zeroed in on a February 2007 e-mail of an “inappropriate” image mocking Inhofe and other climate skeptics floating in the ocean near a melting ice can. NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco acknowledged that “it was in bad taste” and the agency says the creators of the picture have been “counseled by their respective supervisors.”
The report dryly noted:
(b) Inappropriate image created and forwarded by NOAA scientists to the Director of the CRU (CRU email #1171901402)
This email, dated February 19,2007, captioned “Fwd: Marooned?” contained an inappropriate image which NCDC’s Chief Scientist forwarded to the Director of the CRU,s The image depicts superimposed photographs o f several individuals involved in the debate over global warming as characters from the television program Gilligan’s Island, stranded on a melting ice cap at the North Pole or floating nearby in the ocean. In the course of our inquiry, we learned that another NOAA scientist had created the image during official business hours, using government computer equipment.
Both the Chief Scientist and the creator of the image told us it was meant to bring some levity to the constant criticism that they and their fellow climate scientists were facing at the time from “climate skeptics.” Notwithstanding their rationale, such an image could foster an adverse appearance about the scientists’ objectivity, and at least one internet blog questioned the propriety ofthe image. While none of the senior NOAA officials we interviewed said they were aware of the referenced email and the attached picture before we interviewed them,
Dr. Lubchenco told us that “it was in bad taste.” According to NOAA, both scientists, who acknowledged that the image was inappropriate, have since been counseled by their respective supervIsors.
Make that 5 investigations and reviews…. after 10 I’m sure Inhofe will be convinced that he was right all along and no further investigations will be necessary because all of them will continue to be wrong (as in, not find any wrongdoing). He’s a scoundrel of the highest order.
People 100’s years from now will read about this time with the same level of amazement as I do when reading about Civil War history, slavery, civil rights, Victorian times, and the like. One question: will they be reading by LED flashlights run on PV powered batteries, or candlelight? Another question is how deep the hatred and anger will be knowing we had a chance to deal with the inevitable but a bunch of 17th century theocrats living in the 2000’s delayed for decades.
Actually, what springs to mind is the Widgery Tribunal. You know, it was a “rushed process” held in the immediate aftermath of the events, it saw foxes exhonerate other foxes from any stealing of chicken, and it only took 38 years (not 100) for people to read in 2010, with various levels of amazement and the aid of plenty of electronics, that its conclusions had just been “demolished”, since they defended the “unjustified and unjustifiable”.
Of all the “investigations” the only one minimally approaching some standard of decency has been the IAC’s. I won’t hold my breath for any of its recommendations to be implemented, though.
ps readers of some blogs know perfectly well why the NOAA Inspector General had to limit themselves to “NOAA” in its conclusions, rather than expand them to “NOAA employees”
No, the multiple inquiries in to the stolen CRU emails were nothing like that. That’s just you and your tedious, lazy attempt to smear them.
And it’s very easy to determine the veracity of the multiple accusations made against the science and scientists: how much science was overturned or found to be fraudulent?
Answer: none. It was all lies and ignorance.
BlueRock – how much science was investigated and by whom?
Which of the multiple official investigations and numerous unofficial analyses from credible sources did you not understand?
Which part of the science was overturned by the contents of the stolen emails? Clue: I already gave you the answer.
You expose what type of person you are by continuing to obsess over a non-event while the evidence for dire climate change mounts daily.
Just answer my question will you. And please do stop trying to turn this into something personal.
As for the “non-event”, well, it must have been the first non-event capable to spur multiple investigations, reports and inquiries. Unless those haven’t happened either? Is it but a dream…
Your question has been answered if you were only capable of thinking clearly:
Which part of the science was overturned by the contents of the stolen emails? Clue: none.
Global-warming deniers like omnologos are incompetent hacks.
If deniers weren’t so lazy and incompetent, then they could easily have performed their own verifications of NASA’s and NOAA’s global-temperature results by downloading the GHCN *raw* data and documentation from the GHCN ftp site, and then coding their own software to implement a very bog-standard gridding/averaging algorithm to produce their own global-average temperature results.
If deniers like omnologos weren’t so hopelessly lazy and incompetent, they could have peformed their own independent validations of NASA and NOAA’s work with just a few days’ worth of effort.
How do I know this? Because that is exactly what I did. In my spare time, over just a few days, I coded up from scratch my own gridding/averaging software and then I used my software to process GHCN *raw* raw data. My results? We’ll here they are, plotted right along with NASA’s exact results (copied and pasted from NASA’s web-site): http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1028/ghcnrawmyresultsnasares.jpg
My global temperature software is available here: http://forums.signonsandiego.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8148&d=1297963834
If NASA/NOAA were really “manipulating” their data to get fake results, then I would not ever have been able to replicate their results so easily with a very generic gridding/averaging program.
Once again, I coded up a *very generic* gridding/averaging program that processes GHCN V2 temperature data. I used it to process *RAW* data (i.e. no “adjustments” or “homogenization”), and was able to replicate NASA’s global land-temperature index with remarkable fidelity. Getting my initial results took hardly more than a weekend in my spare time. After I got the initial results, I added a bunch of bells and whistles to my program that allows a command-line-savvy user to debunk nearly every loonball wingnut talking point regarding the global temperature record — that took more time. But getting my initial results that validated NASA’s and NOAA’s work took hardly more than a weekend of spare time.
So why is it that I was able to accomplish in days what deniers haven’t been able to accomplish in years? Is it because I’m a genius? Not by a long-shot. It’s because the global-warming denier community consists mostly of lazy, incompetent hacks who are far better at parroting conspiracy theories than they are at doing any kind of real analysis work.
Just saw a couple of grammatical boo-boos in my post right after I pressed the “send” button. Oh, well….
I guess I couldn’t add anything to that. well done.
One final remark:
I was able to do everything described above without submitting a single FOI request!
Actually, I think it’s now 6 investigations. There was three in the UK. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I wonder what the US DOC investigation cost the US taxpayer. In a court of law Inhofe’s demand would have been deemed vexatious, opening him to the possibility of being counter-sued. It’s a pity the taxpayer has no such recourse.
That’s another mystery. There’s been enough accusations flown around in the open against the Climategate people. Still, not one of them has opted to sue, eg using the generous British libel laws. One would have thought, if all those investigations had been so fairly conclusive, at least one of the accusers would find himself in the dock by now.
And if they had, deniers like you would be squawking: “Oh! They have to go to the courts to silence the TRUTH!!1!!”
I’ll leave “deniers” to answer that. But I’d surely like to know why the UEA for example has taken not a single chance to get its name cleared once and for all.
You’re a denier. You produce lots of noise that serves no purpose but to confuse. Anyone can find that out with a few minutes spent skimming the delusional, Dunning Kruger-afflicted drivel you deposit around the webs.
The UEA’s name was cleared – along with all scientists involved. By multiple official investigations and numerous unofficial analyses. By the fact that not a single shred of science was overturned – but I’ve already told you that and yet you persist as though I had never typed it. That’s how you roll….
“You’re a denier”
And there you go. Good bye to you and to all your useless noise.
Call things by their true names to know what they are.
7, if you count the two Penn State investigations as separate – I believe they were conducted by different panels.
It seems like Wikipedia is incomplete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy – does anyone have a URL that details all investigations?
And other than “trick” and “hide the decline”, I’m not ware of any other specifics the deniers quote-mined with any ‘success’. Pretty telling for 13 years of private correspondence.
If someone quote-mined 13 years-worth of my emails, I’d be done for plotting to murder my ex, my next-door neighbour and his hifi as well as violent overthrow of Her Majesty’s government! 😀
it’s very true that baseless insults are the refuge of the climate True Believer…
Have fun you children whilst the world moves on. And when you’ll stop playing games you’ll find the courage to read what eg the IAC (deniers, them?) has written in the wake of the non-event.