Climategate' Prof. Didn't Distort Data, Report Says
Updated: 3 hours 38 minutes ago
Print Text Size
E-mail More
Theunis Bates

Theunis Bates Contributor
AOL News
LONDON (March 31) -- Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the "Climategate" scandal, has been cleared of manipulating global warming data by a British government investigation.

The chief of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit was thrown into the spotlight in November, when hackers leaked hundreds of messages snatched from CRU e-mail accounts. Some of the messages -- released shortly before the Copenhagen Climate Summit -- appeared to show Jones calling on colleagues to withhold or destroy scientific data requested under Britain's Freedom of Information laws. In one e-mail, Jones talked about using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperature records sourced from tree ring data in the 1960s.

Professor Phil Jones appears before a panel in London on March 1, 2010
PA Wire
Climate scientist Phil Jones, here at a hearing in London on March 1, did not embark on a "systematic attempt to mislead" people about global warming data, a panel found.
Climate skeptics argued that the incriminating messages proved that the CRU had deliberately hidden vital information and falsified scientific evidence on global warming.

However, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee -- made up of 14 parliamentarians -- declared in a 60-page report that it was convinced the phrases were "colloquial terms used in private e-mails" and "were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead."

It also refuted suggestions that the e-mails indicated CRU had acted in an unscientific manner, and that the climate center was part of a wider global warming hoax. "Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact," the parliamentary panel said. "We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."

Though the team's science was given the all-clear, Jones was strongly criticized for repeatedly blocking or ignoring troublesome data requests. Jones has previously said that skeptics -- possibly organized by Steve McIntyre, who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org -- deliberately flooded the CRU's 13 staff with Freedom of Information requests to slow their work. The government committee said it could "sympathize" with the frustration Jones must have felt handling requests that "he knew -- or perceived -- were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work." However, it said that this "culture of withholding information ... from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming" was "unacceptable"

"In reality, that's no excuse," committee chairman Phil Willis told reporters. "If people want that information for whatever motive, provided it is a scientific motive, it's important in terms of confidence to make that available."

The panel ordered the CRU to change its approach to releasing data, or risk further damaging efforts to combat global warming across the world. "Climate change is a matter of global importance," Willis said. "Governments are spending trillions of pounds on mitigating global warming, and the quality of the science has to be irreproachable."
Filed under: World, Science
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/report-climategate-professor-did-not-distort-data/19421195

Go figure. False information abounds these days especially from the bitter losers.

I'm thinking the Panel got bought. The emails in question did not seem like "colloquial terms" at all to me.

When are they going to realize that they can't control mother nature?

Gee. I guess you can include Prof. Lovelock (you know, the guy responsible for the whole 'Gaia' hypothesis) as being one of us 'bitter clingers', then ... too bad for your side. 'Global warming' IS and has ALWAYS been a bogus straw man designed to further a one-world-government agenda by the Left. The 'environmentalists' are just their 'useful idiots' (research the term under 'Karl Marx'). Just for fun, throw in 'Adolf Hitler' and the 'Enabling Act' and see how fond Der Führer was of 'environmentalism. He had his own crowd of 'useful idiots' who thought they could 'save' the world ... The past is prologue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-6717-0-5-5--.html

Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.

Interviewed by Today presenter John Humphrys, videos of which you can see below, he said that while the earth's future was utterly uncertain, mankind was not aware it had "pulled the trigger" on global warming as it built its civilizations.

What is more, he predicts, the earth's climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists.

As the record winter cold testifies, he says, global temperatures move in "jerks and jumps", and we cannot confidently predict what the future holds.

Prof Lovelock does not pull his punches on the politicians and scientists who are set to gain from the idea that we can predict climate change and save the planet ourselves.

Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data".

And while renewable energy technology may make good business sense, he says, it is not based on "good practical engineering".

At the age of 90, Prof Lovelock is resigned to his own fate and the fate of the planet. Whether the planet saves itself or not, he argues, all we can do is to "enjoy life while you can".

Not.

There are none so blind as those who will not see ...

So some light is shining for you then?

Cause I know it ain't me you speak of.

You are the believer of lies, not me.

No, bebbykeks, 'tis indeed you of whom I speak ... you volitionally refuse to see what's in front of you - and I know you didn't bother to read the article about Prof. Lovelock's position. Your position is one of the CAUSES of the problem, and is not a mindset that contributes to a SOLUTION.

"Climate change is a matter of global importance," Willis said. "Governments are spending trillions of pounds on mitigating global warming, and the quality of the science has to be irreproachable."

This "vindication" is equivalent to having Nazi judges presiding over the Nuremberg trials..

So its the blind trying to lead those he believes are blind?

Not going to work at all.

You are the mislead in this group, not me.

Ummm, the word you're looking for (but can't seem to find) is 'misled' ... see, SpellCheck won't catch stuff like that, so I can only believe you don't know the correct word ... or if you do, you're completely lost as to how it's spelled. Remember: A 'homonym' is a word that SOUNDS the same as another word, but it doesn't necessarily MEAN the same thing (e.g., 'THREW' and 'THROUGH') ... Got it? Good. And you're trying to convince others YOU have the answer ... ? Oh yeah ...

You can spell check me all you want, it will still not make you right.

You are wrong.

I spelled that right.

The reason I know you are wrong is that the earth heats and cools naturally over many many years. It is a geological fact.

So you are wrong if you believe it is not happening.

Now it should be a natural event in a scientific mind to understand that all life effects it's environment which would logically mean that we being life will effect our environment.

So you are wrong and I am right.

And I don't have to spell it right to make it right.

You make no points with me showing your ignorance.

I don't recall the cycle of heating and cooling being called into question. I may be wrong about that, though.

What IS in question, is not the fact that we, as humans, affect our environment. It's how much we affect it.

Just a thought.

I agree and how much is going to be hard to determine. But scientifically we know we do. All life does.

Like a pimple on your butt . sit on the other cheek for a while and it well be OK