There is a video Statement from Vice Chancellor Prof Edward
Acton is on the University of East Anglia web site.  He says
that he welcomed the investigation and now plans to re-affirm
the data.

That web site announces a new independent panel to assess the
science too, to be chaired by Lord Oxburgh FRS.

dougsmith - 31 March 2010 12:43 PM

The problem is that you appear to be approaching this as a political issue primarily. You have libertarian political leanings, and it makes you angry to be told what to do by the government. So you decide that the objective AGW facts coming out of science must be wrong.
This is the wrong way to approach any scientific issue, since at base it is an example of wishful thinking.

As Chief Joseph said: “It does not require many words to speak the truth”

jump_in_the_pit - 03 April 2010 07:56 PM

There is a video Statement from Vice Chancellor Prof Edward
Acton is on the University of East Anglia web site.  He says
that he welcomed the investigation and now plans to re-affirm
the data.

That web site announces a new independent panel to assess the
science too, to be chaired by Lord Oxburgh FRS.

TY for link mate, and it’s good to see UEA getting their act together and responding. They should have been far more pro-active when the “scandal” of climategate broke.

TucsonTom - 31 March 2010 11:38 AM

The best review of the science of AGW that I’ve ran across to date is a paper entitled “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science,” published in the peer reviewed journal Pure and Applied Geophysics, 162 (2005) 1-30. Here’s a link to it. The paper provides an excellent tutorial of the basic science before getting into the research findings. It summarizes evidence on both sides of the debate, and it also looks at extreme weather events. The authors’ conclude:

TucsonTom,
  I read through your link and the seventeen page report.  I’ve even copied it into my word program intending to do a more detailed reading, research and critique. 

  To be honest I’m not impressed and wonder if you really believe what you stated?

  I say this because you made yourself sound pretty sure of your “skepticism”. 

  Are you actually willing to defend this report that you call the “best review of the science of AGW”?

  If so,
  I challenge you, TucsonTom, to a mock trial of the PDF file you linked to:

“The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science.”
Journal Pure and Applied Geophysics, 162 (2005) 1-30

  Are you capable of defending it?  Or are you blowing hot air?  Are you willing to defend it?

Go CC.

Perhaps a seperate moderated thread?

Mike from Oz - 30 March 2010 05:35 PM

And of course, the science is vindicated!
......
Now watch the denial movement spin that one ...

The spin is that you can’t trust the ‘verdict’ —just one more environmental fad…

This guy must have got some ideas from that Altizer podcast…
[“What’s the Next Global Warming?”]

So global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time. Which means that pretty soon we’re going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place.

As for the United States, Gallup reports that global warming now ranks sixth on the list of Americans’ top 10 environmental concerns. My wager is that within a few years “climate change” will exercise global nerves about as much as overpopulation, toxic tampons, nuclear winters, ozone holes, killer bees, low sperm counts, genetically modified foods and mad cows do today.

And of course the reverse conspiracy spin….

The world is now several decades into the era of environmental panic. The subject of the panic changes every few years, but the basic ingredients tend to remain fairly constant. A trend, a hypothesis, an invention or a discovery disturbs the sense of global equilibrium. Often the agent of distress is undetectable to the senses, like a malign spirit. A villain—invariably corporate and right-wing—is identified.

The world is now several decades into the era of environmental panic. The subject of the panic changes every few years, but the basic ingredients tend to remain fairly constant. A trend, a hypothesis, an invention or a discovery disturbs the sense of global equilibrium. Often the agent of distress is undetectable to the senses, like a malign spirit. A villain—invariably corporate and right-wing—is identified.

Mike from Oz - 06 April 2010 11:27 PM

Go CC.

Perhaps a separate moderated thread?

Sure.  But, that is making the big leap of faith that he’d take me up on my offer.
I notice TusconTom seems to have run to ground.

The world is now several decades into the era of environmental panic. The subject of the panic changes every few years, but the basic ingredients tend to remain fairly constant. A trend, a hypothesis, an invention or a discovery disturbs the sense of global equilibrium. Often the agent of distress is undetectable to the senses, like a malign spirit. A villain—invariably corporate and right-wing—is identified.

“Often the agent of distress is undetectable,”  What utter BS. 
Undetectable maybe to those who insist on burying there heads in sand.  Speaking of sand . . .

enkidu - 05 April 2010 01:23 PM

http://www.orexca.com/aral_sea.shtml
there is a dramatic seven-part map slide show showing developments from 1960 through 2008.
The average depth was maybe 30m, declining to a present depth of maybe 14m in that poor remnant of the Aral sea.

By the way, as someone who has been personally watching these ‘environmental panics’ for the past four decades, I know that it is a lie to say the panic “changes” every few years.  New highlights are discovered and reported but it is all really part and parcel of the same problem:

Contempt for our planet and faith that we have the right to suck it dry and alter it to our ignorant needs, regardless of future outcomes.  After all, we are basically evolved reptiles, who can’t see beyond our immediate desires.

Time resurrect this thread with the happy news that yet another investigation has been completed, this time by the US Department of Commerce Inspector General.  But, now the folks that do not want to believe that climatologists around the world are acting in good faith, will simply conclude that the global AGW conspiracy goes to the top. Just like the evolution conspiracy those other scientists have going.

Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists
Report is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information

February 24, 2011

At the request of U.S. Sen. Inhofe, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails stolen in November 2009 from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and found no evidence of impropriety or reason to doubt NOAA’s handling of its climate data. The Inspector General was asked to look into how NOAA reacted to the leak and to determine if there was evidence of improper manipulation of data, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with Information Quality Act and Freedom of Information Act guidelines.

“We welcome the Inspector General’s report, which is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information,” said Mary Glackin, NOAA’s deputy under secretary for operations. “None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA’s understanding of climate change science.”

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.” (Page 12)
  * “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.”
(Page 16)

The report notes a careful review of eight e-mails that it said “warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data,” that was completed and did not reveal reason to doubt the scientific integrity of NOAA scientists or data.

The report questions the way NOAA handled a response to four FOIA requests in 2007. The FOIA requests sought documents related to the review and comments of part of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. NOAA scientists were given legal advice that IPCC work done by scientists were records of the IPCC, not NOAA. The requesters were directed to the IPCC, which subsequently made available the review, comments and responses which are online at IPCC and http://www.hcl.harvard.edu.

“The NOAA scientists responded in good faith to the FOIA requests based on their understanding of the request and in accordance with the legal guidance provided in 2007,” Glackin said. “NOAA’s policies, practices, and the integrity and commitment of our scientists have resulted in NOAA’s climate records being the gold-standard that our nation and the world has come to rely on for authoritative information about the climate.”

citizenschallenge.pm - 25 February 2011 11:20 PM

Time resurrect this thread with the happy news that yet another investigation has been completed, this time by the US Department of Commerce Inspector General.  But, now the folks that do not want to believe that climatologists around the world are acting in good faith, will simply conclude that the global AGW conspiracy goes to the top.  Just like the evolution conspiracy those other scientists have going.

Well you know how silly those conspiracy theorists are.

psik

psikeyhackr - 26 February 2011 10:08 AM

Well you know how silly those conspiracy theorists are.

psik

{big thumbs up smiley}