Posts
Climategate: Another Investigation, Another Exoneration
Last week a panel appointed by the University of East Anglia released the results of their investigation into the scientific publications of the Climate Research Unit (CRU). The committee consisted of 11 members who were chosen in consultation with the Royal Society. The report is an easy read and is available here. In summary, the panel:
- Found no evidence of fraud or inappropriate manipulation of data.
- Found that statistical methods were not always the best, but it was not clear that use of better statistical methods would substantially change the results and conclusions.
- Recommended that CRU involve professional statisticians.
- Recommended better data storage and documentation.
Of the investigations launched since the breaking of Climategate, three have released reports. The first was an investigation of Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, which I covered here. The second was conducted by the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons (their conclusions here). And this is the third. Although some of these investigations have found things to criticize, none of the investigations thus far have found anything that would significantly alter the state of the science, nor have they found any scientific dishonesty. I don't expect that further investigations will find otherwise, but we will see.
For more on this latest report see Discover Magazine's coverage here and here.
7 comments:
I'm glad for the investigations. Let's have science out in the open. As it is, I'd like the dialogue to move past whether there is climate change and man's part in it, to what can we feasibly do about it?
First, do we WANT to stop global warming? History has shown that warm periods have actually been good overall for the species on the planet.
Second, what works to stop it? Cap and Trade, and other suggested methods don't seem like real solutions. The Kyoto Treaty would not have stopped global warming from occurring, just barely slowed it down. Why spend trillions of dollars and ruin economies, if there is nothing we can directly do to stop it?
Then, what sense is there in us breaking the bank and slowing down our economy, if China and India are not also going to promote clean energy and etc?
Finally, how do we accomplish anything if no one can agree? Can't we start with common sense changes? Environmentalists will not allow us to build nuclear plants, which ostensibly could greatly reduce our footprint. Imagine if we could eliminate all the coal burning plants with nuclear reactors. So, how do we actually get past the discussion, if radicals won't let us move forward in any meaningful way?
Truth will always win.
It appears that of the eleven CRU publications that were chosen by the investigation committee as representative of CRU's work over the last 20 years or so, none were those with which critics had much difficulty. Steve McIntyre goes into it at length here:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/15/a-fair-sample/
I'm really happy with the recommendations re: statisticians and data management. Those have always been my two biggest concerns about the relatively young discipline of Climatology.
And I'm also glad to see that there's no evidence of fraud--and I hope that Jones and his fellows can rest a little easier now.
But even so, I'm not convinced that an over developed ideological sense of urgency would not have clouded the CRU's judgment.
Jack
Rameumptom,
I don't claim to be informed in environmental economics, which is where your questions are heading. But for starters, you might want to read Paul Krugman's NYT Magazine piece, "Building a Green Economy". It got a qualified thumbs up over at RealClimate.
You lost all crdibility after you refered to Krugman .
Your misspelled insult did little for yours.
That's interesting: you "lose credibility" if you refer to a professor of economics and nobel prize winner (Krugman). But McIntyre, who does not even have a PhD, and only a BSC in science (with some extra studies in economy, politics and philosophy) is considered a great climate science researcher? This seems slightly bizarre to me.
Post a Comment