Climategate was not about a single "hide the decline" comment, but rather the adulteration of science for political purposes. There are many examples of this. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHEL...
When the "investigation" was conducted, it was supposed to be about the evidence of the adulteration of science for political purposes, not flippant comments. Thus, for the "investigation" to have any meaning, it would need to start with what the specific charges are, and what evidence exists, or not. http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/...
I have no problem understanding why the investigator would not want to be bothered to produce information, but to write a response like that is VERY suspicious.
Why would someone be so careful to respond so fully, use the justification that "the ICCER team operated very openly and transparently and that a very substantial amount of information about the Review is in the public domain.", then forget to include a reference to that public domain that had obviously eluded the requester unless there really is no such information? http://www.cce-review.org/
This looks like less than a whitewash. At least a whitewash defines the charges and possibly the evidence. This looks like somebody wrote a check for an exoneration without any sort of investigation or definition at all. http://www.livescience.com/11634-uk-repo...
The contract normally spells out what is to be investigated. No contract? Sounds like climategate really did not want anything specific put down.
Climate Realist, perhaps you should consider that this question is not so much about reopening Climategate, (such as it has become) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-enviro...
but rather about looking into fraud by the exonerators. Given your response, it appears that the faithful do not want to know what the investigation is about. The exoneration (for what?) is enough. If you want to understand Climategate, http://www.climategate.com/
start by forgetting the words: "Hide the decline". Then, you can begin by asking the pertinent question: "What is this about?" http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/P...
For the CRU, it should have specifically investigated the methods used to find the temperatures, adjusting for changing conditions like urban heat islands and the appropriate location of thermometers. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/d...
It should have looked at whether or not stations showing cooling were discarded while stations showing warming were kept, and whether reading adjustments tended to make temperatures rise more or less than the readings. http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen...
These are things that Warmists laughed about at the time to think that there could have been any fraud involved, or even an unintentional bias. However, in the wake of what appears to be NO investigation at all, how can you expect those concerns [1] to be dismissed? How can you know that the observed previous warming of 0.6 Kelvins over a century was real or not?
Given the loss of confidence that happened, a lack of real investigation is extremely suspicious, and throws the whole basis of the Warmist argument [2] into credible doubt.
Edit @gcnp58:
Here's a conspiracy theory for you:
The Pope is not really the Vicar of Christ, and is never any more infallible than anyone else. The whole foundation of his power is a fiction made up in order to perpetuate the power and money of the Catholic Church.
I suppose that you could never consider such a huge conspiracy theory, since you know that conspiracies do not really exist; especially one in which thousands of people associated with an established authority would have to be in on it. [3]
Douglas Holland should contact Sir Russell Muir's committee.
edit
The whole basis for the supposed scandal was the "Hide the decline" email. If making flippant remarks is a crime, the Federal Prison should open a wing for YA members.
Actually, make that two wings. You may want to keep the "skeptics" and the "warmers" separate.
< I really wonder about your attitude if the shoe was on the other foot.>
Given that Climategate came from the illegal hacking of emails, I would like to think that if the shoe was on the other foot, that myself and other warmers would condemn it. Nevertheless, I admit that I could be disappointed in this regard.
Asker and Portland
What else was it about? What do the emails say about
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas? http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissio...
2. The laws of thermodynamics? http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynami...
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing? http://co2now.org/
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontr...
4. This CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
A link to a report about direct measurements of carbon dioxide in a certain suburb of Frankfurt would only answer this question if it is from the emails.
5. The Earth's temperature is increasing? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
6. Natural factors which influence climate would be cooling the Earth if not for anthropogenic CO2? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...
And, since I am talking to you, Portland
7. What do the emails say about Fukushima?
Remind me again, why exactly did you object to the finding that climate skeptics are prone to accept conspiracy ideations?
Global warming is such a problem that it is necessary to deal with all its aspects, which includes the politics. When politicians formulate their policy they need inputs from many disciplines and from science as well. But unfortunately global warming has become an absolutely political issue and politicians do their best to influence even science.
In 1992 at the Earth Summit the decision to prevent such dangerous climate change was taken. The first step was the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which is supposed to come into force in 2005.
Ads by Google
One of the reports of the U.N. Panel on Climate Changes warns that the U.S. and other wealthy countries should immediately cut their oil and gas consumption and agree to get at least a quarter of their electrical energy from renewable resources - solar and wind power; and that they should double their research spending on low-carbon energy by 2010.In 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to make Clinton Administration not to send the Kyoto treaty to Capitol Hill for ratification. In his first term president Bush rejected Kyoto. Russia ratified it, but most believe that Putting was made to do that as British Prime Minister and other European Union officials threatened not to let him become a member of World Trade Organization, which could cost Russia billions of dollars each year. But the chief economic adviser of Putting - Andrei Illation shows his doubts as for the upholding commit to Kyoto, he says: "There is no evidence confirming a positive linking between the level of carbon dioxide and temperature change. The U.N. Panel's so called scientific data are considerably distorted and in many cases falsified" (Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb? by James Hansen, 2003, pp.2-15). One of the main ideas of Clarion and others is to break the advanced economies of the U.S., Europe and Japan, by persuading the multi-national companies to move plants and jobs to developing countries in order not to comply with emissions restrictions. But the president of the American Policy Center in Washington - Tom Decease doesn't agree that it makes sense, he states as the main concern and the prime target is the wealth of the United States it would not be wise to place factories in Third World countries, as the same amount of emissions would come out from jungles of South America instead of Chicago and in this case we are not talking about the protection of the environment any more. He is right in a way.
The main goal of the meeting in Kyoto was signing the amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Rio Treaty) in order to require the signatory nations to take the necessary steps to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as these gases cause an alarm situation with global temperatures. The costs of signing it for the U.S. could be really high, as the county could be made to reduce between 10 and 20 % of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 that would cause reduction of gross domestic products by $260 billion annually; it is equal to $2.700 per household. Certainly it was hard to prove that such costs are justified. Besides as millions of American people could be put at risk, several important questions appeared. The first one was about the possible merits or drawbacks of global warming. The World Bank researches prove that about one-third of the whole population suffers from water shortages. By 2025 they say - around 40 % of the whole population could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies. The crops will also suffer from lack of water. Global warming leads to more condensation and more evaporation, thus producing more rains. So it could be in a way an answer to the problem about lack of water. The second positive point about global warming is possibility of agriculture in North America and Europe, the southern regions of Greenland were not covered with ice when between 10th and 12th centuries the temperature was 0.5 degrees warmer than today, and could be also cultivated. The evidence of this was found when: "scientists from the National Science Foundation sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 extracted in an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100.000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates".( Michael Crichton's State of Fear: Climate Change in the Cineplex, by Amy Ridenour pp.1-5). Thus global warming could mean more agricultural productivity and more water resources.
Well of course it's just your normal cover up
Please be patient, this is going to be a complicated question.
As a result of the release of the Climategate emails, the UEA had a strong desire to restore their credibility. To do so, they commissioned an independent inquiry headed by Sir Russell Muir which exonerated them, other than some "minor" issues, of any serious wrongdoing.
Douglas Holland had filed an FOIA request asking for information and emails regarding the information that the inquiry used to reach its conclusions. A recent decision was handed down on this request and it was dismissed. The basis of the dismissal was that the public institution UEA, which is subject to UK FOIA, did not hold any information regarding the inquiry to clear their name. Here are some select passages of that finding:
"107. Had there been a contractual document setting out the terms of their relationship, that would have been the logical starting point in any analysis. However, there was no such contractual document, nor indeed was there anything in any other communication between them on the subject of how the information received and generated by the ICCER was to be owned, managed, stored, archived or otherwise dealt with.
110. That said, we find it surprising that there was no contractual document, and in particular, that there was no discussion between them about the information that would be received or generated by the ICCER.
114. Given the complete absence of any discussion between them on the subject, it may seem surprising that they are so clear about their understanding in relation to the information.
122. At the present time, however, and specifically at the date the request was received, we find that the information was not held on behalf of the UEA."
Source: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2013/2012_0098.html
Many questions arise from this (in the words of this court used many times in the ruling) "surprising" relationship between UEA and Russel Muir (ICCER). Here is a recent comment from the UK Human Rights blog which makes a pretty straightforward point:
"It is a little odd that a public authority can commission an inquiry of this sort, pay for it, and use its results, in this case, broadly to clear its name, and then not be able to produce documents which, had the inquiry been internal, it would have been required to produce to the requester."
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/05/07/who-holds-the-working-papers-of-the-climategate-inquiry/
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is my summary. The UEA seeks to repair its tarnished image from the release of the Climategate emails. They initiate and fund an independent inquiry. They pay Russell Muir to set it up, administer it, conduct it and produce a final report. There is no contract on who will hold the background information gathered during to produce the final conclusions nor apparently even any discussion about it. A citizen files an FOIA for this information and is denied his request due to the fact that it cannot be concluded that UEA holds this information nor that the inquiry holds this information on its behalf.
Back to my question. Where is this information? Who actually holds it? Will anyone ever see it? Can it legally be deleted forever?
As a secondary question, can you see how some people might not give this inquiry and UEA the credibility they sought in the first place?
