What Fresh Hell Is This?

February 25, 2011

For The Climategate Files

Way back in late November 2009, Republican Senator James Inhofe announced on (of course) Fox "News" that he was calling for an investigation into the so-called Climategate emails.

Take a look (the announcement is about 3 minutes in):

And in late May of 2010, he sent a letter to the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce requesting an investigation. He also requested an investigation into Dr. Jane Lubchenco. You remember Lubchenco, right? She was quoted recently by the editorial board of the Tribune-Review. Inhofe was apparently unhappy about her testimony to Congress when she said:
The [CRU] emails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses ofthousands of scientists around the world that tell us that the earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activities. "
Which is the truth, apparently, but apparently annoyed Inhofe nonetheless.

So what happened with the investigation? You guessed it. From The Hill:
A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data.

It’s the latest investigation to clear scientists of manipulating climate data after thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were leaked in 2009.

“Climategate” has become something of a rallying call for climate skeptics, who have pointed to the e-mails to suggest there is a conspiracy among the world’s scientists. But a slew of investigations into the e-mails have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing.
Something we probably won't be seeing anytime soon on the Trib's Op-Ed page. The same Op-Ed page that only last November published:
If the work of blame-mankind climate "scientists" were unimpeachable, they wouldn't be gearing up for a charm offensive.

Seven hundred global-warming doomsayers have agreed to defend their dubious "science" publicly under the auspices of the American Geophysical Union. And 39 Chicken Littles have signed up for a separate "climate rapid response team" organized by a professor at Minnesota's St. Thomas University for deployment to radio and TV talk shows.

Both efforts smack of increasing desperation fueled by the blame-mankind crowd's credibility crumbling beneath the weight of the scandalous Climategate e-mails, which show data manipulation, and greater public recognition of their leftist big-government agenda. That's why skeptics of global-warming orthodoxy make up half of the new GOP members just elected to Congress.
But I digress.

Here's the report Inhofe requested. And the jackpot:
In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures. In addition, we found no evidence to suggest that NOAA was non-compliant with the IQA or the Shelby Amendment.
And let me write that again: No evidence NOAA inappropriately manipulated the data.

Will Senator Inhofe be making an announcement to that effect on Fox "News"? Will Scaife's braintrust?

We won't be holding our breath.


Heir to the Throne said...

Inspector General Finds “NOAA Climategate Emails Warrant Further Investigation”
As usual, the mainstream media reads and reports only the summary page and so assumed NOAA is cleared of all wrongdoing.

EdHeath said...

HTTT, did you read the report? You link to an Inhofe press release, which cherry picks from the report and presents new information without attributing a source. 1073 emails stolen from an academic facility. If the server of the RNC was hacked and a thousand emails were stolen, which would you concentrate on, the emails from the Koch brothers telling the Republicans what policies to pursue, or the fact the emails were stolen at all. Yeah, I know just what you would say. Too bad the Democrats turn out to have more ethics than the Republicans.

Meanwhile, out of 1073 stolen emails, ten questions were found, and eight of those were explained. If you think you can convince us climate change is a fraud because date from China might be questionable, or because NOAA deals with data from the arctic in a somewhat weird way, go for it. It is all there. The other two emails deal with a sort of cartoon thing, in what Lubchenco calls "bad taste" and an email where CRU officials discuss spending money from a NOAA contract before a new NOAA contract is awarded. Probably bad accounting, so naturally climate change is a fraud.

So are you ready to support a $3 a gallon gas tax and support switching the 8 billion in subsidies we give oil companies to solar and wind energy companies? Or are you still a hypocrite?

Heir to the Throne said...

Odd Those who complain about stolen email in climategate applaud the Wikileaks State department cables and Sarah Palin's hacked email.

I don't support $3 a gallon gas tax but I hope Democrats promote it in the 2012 elections.

Edward said...

Ah, HTTT, apparently you agree that the emails do *not* warrant further investigation, as detailed in the Inspector General's actual report (as opposed to Inhofe's deliberately deceptive press release). You agree that Climate Change is settled science, and therefore we need to act to mitigate the negative effects we are causing.

But of course, you want to distract with false equivalencies. I guess you are in favor of computer crime as long it serves conservative interests. But conservatives and the government (in this case the State Department and Department of Defense) have an unlimited right to privacy (and in fact the government can spy on us).

Ass for the three dollar a gallon tax, let me know how you feel when gas hits six dollars a gallon in the unrestricted free market.