Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Surprise! 'Climategate' wasn't the scam skeptics claimed

Sorry, climate conspiracy theorists, your job just got even more difficult. You’re going to have to add to the list of folks in on the great climate deception you’ve imagined. Now it’s not just climate scientists, European politicians, the media, socialists, one-world government types, Al Gore and me. It’s also two independent panels assembled to examine the controversy following those stolen e-mails from the Climactic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, supposedly the “smoking gun” that demonstrated a vast, world-wide scheme among climate researchers to manipulate data in order to hoodwink the public.

The second panel, which released its report yesterday, specifically examined “the integrity of the research published by the Climactic Research Unit,” research that featured prominently in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s canonical work. The money line:

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climactic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.

And, though there is still plenty of room to criticize the scientists involved -- for sloppy record-keeping, overreaction to the attacks of skeptics, etc. -- the report unsurprisingly found that some external criticisms of the work “show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU.”

Of course, the thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that you can never really be disproved. Evidence contrary to your belief becomes just another piece in the conspiratorial effort. See, for example, Gerald Warner’s particularly venomous screed about the findings of the “scam apologists” on the review panel. Other critics point out that the head of the panel has some interests in clean energy. But, among others, the committee also included statistician David Hand, who praised the work of climate-skeptic hero Steve McIntyre at the press conference at which the report was released. Apparently Hand hadn’t finished consuming his dixie cup of Kool Aid.

By Stephen Stromberg  | April 15, 2010; 3:02 PM ET
Categories:  Stromberg  | Tags:  Stephen Stromberg  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: NYT Poll: Relatively good news for GOP. Bad news for Dems
Next: Sarah Palin is liked -- as long as she stays away from the White House


Mr. Stromberg, your myopic idiocy has no bounds. The results of a second CYA panel only proves that the AGW scam will not be stopped by anyone in Academia until the gravy-train dries up for funding. The AGW scammers will continue to obfuscate raw data and the methods for producing these hysterical computer models from everyone (even professional statisticians), but especially skeptics. Sunshine is the greatest threat to the AGW scam.

Posted by: gmfletcher12 | April 15, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

gmfletcher, you crazy nut, you just proved Stromberg's point with your nonsensical gibberish.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | April 15, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I've always wanted to comment on one of these posts.

Posted by: KevinPerlow | April 15, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

@gmfletcher1: Do you understand what "two independent panels" means?

No, because nothing can get in the way of your warped ideology.

Posted by: JRM2 | April 15, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climactic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.

"No evidence of deliberate scientific malpractice" may kill conspiracy theories, but it doe not make the conclusions drawn or the data used in the research valid. It is about the science and the science is shabby. The admit to "shotty record keeping". What a load.

Posted by: star_key2 | April 15, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a nut, I'm purely commenting on the lack of critical and skeptical analysis of the raw data and methods for generating computer models. Unlike you unkoolkat and jrm3 I work in a scientific field regulated by goverment agencies. If we lost raw data, kept incomplete records, and fudged data analysis to fit a certain template the government would shut us down in a heartbeat. You can cook up any crazy model you want if you have no fear that a critical review will expose your unscientific work (that's why they dumped the raw data and saved the modified data). It does not appear that EAU or Climate/AGW researchers will ever fear this type smackdown. Stromberg is a tool and literally has no idea what he is talking about.

Posted by: gmfletcher12 | April 15, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

I read the Oxburgh Panel report and concur with gmfletcher. While the Panel didn't find evidence of deliberate misrepresentation, it did suggest that the researchers were using questionable statistical techniques (with no statisticians available to provide a sanity check).

Questionable techniques produce questionable results. This is why it's fair to say the science isn't "settled."

Posted by: cynicalidealist | April 15, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

gmfletcher- you are not listening. We said you are a nut! Oops, maybe I'm wrong, the thermometer here at 2300' was at 30degs. for 12.27 minutes this morning. Aw heck, you're a nut.

Posted by: hoser3 | April 15, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

But hey, Koch Ind.'s payed 40 companies $50,000,000 to say it's all bunk so it must be bunk. And, as if that isn't enough proof, Glenn Beck had formulas and words on his blackboard (arrows and everything) that not only agreed with Koch, it proved Koch to be correct. So there.

Posted by: hoser3 | April 15, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

All of the scientific evidence that supports global climate change will change few minds that have already decided it is a "hoax". About the only thing that makes me skeptical is that both Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are on the record (in the past, before they saw an advantage to deriding it, instead) as stating their belief that it is real, that it is significant, and it is at least in part due to the actions and inactions of man. Rather than dwell on their reasons for flip-flopping (Sarah made 12 million dollars last year, and Glenn-who knows?), I just want to be on the other side of any issue that they support.

Posted by: wilsonjmichael | April 16, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

The best reason I know of for doubting global climate change is that not so long ago (before they realized how beneficial it was to oppose it), both Sarah Palin (I made 12 million dollars last year, you betcha!) and Glenn Beck (I made much more than you, Sarah!) were on the record saying that global warming is real, that it is significant, and that it is at least in part due to man-made actions. If they were on the side of support (before their flip-flops), then I have to question whether or not I can be on the same side of any issue that they have positions on. The science will have to be absolutely, positively, certain before I could do that (you betcha!).

Posted by: wilsonjmichael | April 16, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

A proper debate having been blocked by scientists who were dismisive, lied, destroyed evidence, plotted together to block criticisms, mocked challengers and blocked thier publications, exchanged emails detailing how they skewed results, and destroyed the original materials so that it could not be uncovered are found not to be discredited by other scientific panels who find their work on target and acceptable. Who headed this panel, boss hog.

Posted by: almorganiv | April 16, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double comments (now triple). It looked like my original was lost in limbo (damn this internet thing that Al Gore created or invented or whatever). Anyway, if 100 investigating panels find no evidence of manipulation of data, or questionable interpretation, or bias, or suppression of opposing views regarding global climate change, then the whole thing is still "dubious" and likely a "hoax" because otherwise, why was there so much need to prove it in the first place? If it is real, then it has to be obvious enough to be explained in single-syllable words, like "Fox".

Posted by: wilsonjmichael | April 16, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Oh hey, a second blue ribbon panel says "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtains, the great an powerful Al Gore has spoken". Listen up kool aid drinkers, trust is earned, not given to a follow up panel of the same turds who gave us AGW I. Nice try but I'll keep my money, you keep your change. By the way, are we still buying billions of middle east oil? Gee that makes sense.

Posted by: elcigaro1 | April 16, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Anybody who looked at the CRU e-mails on the web for an hour could see what was going on here. The question is why people who are supposed to be serious journalists apparently did not do that. Even after AP went through them and published a synopsis, we were still treated to sneering articles about the climate scientists' "credibility problem". The fact is that these people are attacking the messenger and will continue to do so because they cannot face the reality of the situation. We have to make progress without them. We will all be dead soon enough, but others will have to live with what we leave behind.

Posted by: chase-truth | April 16, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Kool Aid?

That signifies that a person is so much of a follower tht they will kill themselves to meet the goals of the group. I don't see the application here, but much of this is difficult to understand.

But I have to say that the discussion on climate is not a two party talk. There are more views tht "warmer" and "denier."

Get used to that and you will see how limited the problem set and its solutions have been.

One problem: warmer climate.

One solution: cool the Earth.


But what if we get an ice age on the way?

We may wind up thanking the people who produce greenhouse gases.

Who knows?

Until we sort out all the problems and all the solutions in our debate, very few ill know what we should do.

Slogans about Kool Aid don't help that much. Neither does making a "denier" a crime.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | April 16, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I started reading you not long ago and I would have to say, you are so far to the left of things that you make Pelosi look like moderate. As with so many people on the left, all you read, the people you know, and the social settings you are apart of, have taken away any possible chance of an open-minded thought. (something lefties always claim the right doesn't have) It is sad that you are so blind that you can't see what is staring you in the face. Climate change has become an industry. And now that things are falling apart regarding their sceince, well, it is full denial mode for climate science and the media that covers for them. And that is what you are doing. You can believe climate change, but clearly YOU believe it blindly.

Posted by: AMCLUCAS | April 16, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Why cant people trust that an almighty God is caring for the Earth and its inhabitants. Do we have to assign "governing power" over everything. I think that this climate panic is exactly what the author of Chicken Little had in mind when he wrote parable.
"Ths Sky Is Falling"
Wouldnt it be nicer to see it through the eyes of Robert Browning as he wrote the poem
"Pippa's Song"
"THE year 's at the spring,
And day 's at the morn;
Morning 's at seven;
The hill-side 's dew-pearl'd;
The lark 's on the wing;
The snail 's on the thorn;
God 's in His heaven—
All 's right with the world!"
-Enjoy life my friends

Posted by: hanspcguy | April 16, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

So we have a panel stating there's no evidence of "deliberate" scientific malpractice, and Stromberg believes this proves skeptics wrong?

I suppose that's possible. Of course this only works when you believe the strawman that skeptics solely believe alarmists are deliberately lying rather than victims of groupthink and professional pressure. Or we could just conclude Stromberd's too dense to realize his belief isn't supported by the facts.

Posted by: mj13 | April 16, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

And you'll discreetly disregard this slam: "A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as 'exaggerated' on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using 'inappropriate' methods." (

Might as won't support your hysteria. Can't spew your ignorance anymore!

Posted by: ajguru | April 16, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Stromberg, I did read about the results you described in this panel's findings, but it is curious that you didn't mention one of the most interesting ones: the "hocky stick" global temperature curve that is at the heart of the AGW protagonists claim that global warming is man caused, was found to be strongly enhanced by faulty data manipulation and modeling of recent temperature data. In other words man's activities aren't the main culprit. But then this is what we actual scientist's who aren't tied to an environmental gravy train can find out by a dispassionate examination of ALL the data. Try being really objective for a change, OK?

Posted by: prof40ok | April 16, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

All of you can waste your time arguing over whether or not scientists "cooked the books". There is one fact that dominates all others.

The UN's IPCC predicted that from 2001 to today, Earth's temperature would INCREASE at a rate between 2.4 and 5.3 degrees C. per century. Subsequent measurements have determined that since 2001 Earth's temperature has DECREASED at the rate of 2 degrees C. per century.

One doesn't need to know anything other than this to determine that obviously the IPCC's models were wrong, that they obviously did not include significant factors that control Earth's temperature.

I would suggest to those predicting Earth's gloom and doom, that they return to the drawing board and utilize ALL factors that contribute to Earth's temperature - there are many!

Posted by: robertkmurray | April 16, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Yea, this report is about as believeable as the one where Acorn had insiders analyze their corruption.

NewsBusters revealed who this guy really is, a shill for the Global Warming Hoaxers.

Of course, at the Washington ComPost, anything that backs a liberal policy gets zero analysis, only regurgitation.

Kinda like y'all reporting on the Nuclear Summit without actually being allowed to be there to see what occurred. But, you are good at taking the White House talking points as gospel.

What happened to the Woodward/Bernstein journalists that used to represent this once-respectable paper but is now just the Huffington Post in Drag.

Posted by: TerpAndy | April 17, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

NewsBusters| Investor's Business Daily: Climategate Gets a Whitewash

Posted by: StewartIII | April 17, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company