U.K. Government: "Climategate" No Reason to Doubt Climate Change

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yet another scientific body has jumped in to the so-called Climategate fray to dispute that the leaked documents offer any reason to doubt that human activity is warming the planet.

Back in 2009, as you may recall, a number of e-mails and documents related to climate research were leaked following a server breach at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Climate skeptics, poring through the correspondence, latched on to a number of emails that they claimed undermined the scientific case for human-caused climate change, including the widely publicized assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The climate scientists, skeptics alleged, manipulated data and used underhanded methods to block the publication of conflicting research.

But those skeptical claims have been roundly debunked. First, UEA asked two independent review panels to assess the evidence. Both reviews were completed in 2010 and found no evidence for scientific malpractice. The panels' reports did make important recommendations about making climate science more transparent, but as the one of those reports concluded, "we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments." The Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in turn issued two reports on the UEA reviews, broadly accepting the panels' recommendations for greater openness and transparency.

Now the U.K. government, represented by the Government Office for Science, has produced its own response. In a May 5 memo to Parliament, the government wrote: "After two independent reviews, and two reviews by the Science and Technology Committee, we find no evidence to question the scientific basis of human influence on the climate."

A broad range of evidentiary sources in a landmark 2007 IPCC report and "an almost continuous body of publications in the academic literature" all point in the same direction, the governmental memo stated, showing that "the evidence for human induced climate change continues to grow and that the perceptions of future climate risk are not diminishing."

Ultimately, it is doubtful that the governmental proclamation will have any significant influence on the debate. Those who believe the planet is warming are already supported by scientific consensus and by a wealth of climate data, and those who believe a conspiracy is afoot to suppress conflicting data will hardly be swayed by a formal statement to the contrary from a government body.

http://www.scientifi...ason-2011-05-06

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[luckytxn 2,264]

"Climategate" was just one of many where it was shown that group were being deceitful. The best way to combat all this is to find out why and have real scientific research done and lay everything on the table. Makes no difference if the data shows good or bad or one way or another. Stop trying to stifle any data that disagrees, no more campaigns to ruin any scientist that disagrees.

[Pooky 3,792]

"Climategate" was just one of many where it was shown that group were being deceitful. The best way to combat all this is to find out why and have real scientific research done and lay everything on the table. Makes no difference if the data shows good or bad or one way or another. Stop trying to stifle any data that disagrees, no more campaigns to ruin any scientist that disagrees.

But those that show even the remotest deviation from the approved text aren't scientists, they're skeptics.

Until both sides recognise that neither has the full facts, we're going to get nowhere fast. And all the talk in hte world will amount to so much hot air, thus helping the Global Warming camp's case.

[Zero Sum 305]

"Climategate" was just one of many where it was shown that group were being deceitful. The best way to combat all this is to find out why and have real scientific research done and lay everything on the table. Makes no difference if the data shows good or bad or one way or another. Stop trying to stifle any data that disagrees, no more campaigns to ruin any scientist that disagrees.

So where in this post is there a scientific opinion that judges the 'climategate' as proof against man-made climate change?

Poor ruined scientists. I know some of those climate scientists can be big bad bullies. Jerks. But I certainly can't expect much if the 'opposition' is arguing apple juice out of oranges.

[Zero Sum 305]

But those that show even the remotest deviation from the approved text aren't scientists, they're skeptics.

Until both sides recognise that neither has the full facts, we're going to get nowhere fast. And all the talk in hte world will amount to so much hot air, thus helping the Global Warming camp's case.

Also helping the cause that simply refuse to follow the actual science being performed. Science is what it is... paranoia and conspiracy theories are not skepticism.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Also helping the cause that simply refuse to follow the actual science being performed. Science is what it is... paranoia and conspiracy theories are not skepticism.

I thought Algore instilled the unfounded paranoia, and thus far left gave us these silly conspiracy theories, from cow flatulence to Monsanto, so all we are left with is skepticism for the whole issue, any "real" science aside.

[Zero Sum 305]

I thought Algore instilled the unfounded paranoia, and thus far left gave us these silly conspiracy theories, from cow flatulence to Monsanto, so all we are left with is skepticism for the whole issue, any "real" science aside.

That's what happens when you stick yourself in a black/white world where you only think from one side of the fence, particularly fixating on the silly aspects.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's what happens when you stick yourself in a black/white world where you only think from one side of the fence, particularly fixating on the silly aspects.

I enjoy the dialectic. Only wishy-washy folks hide in the shadows claiming there are many hues of gray, satisfying no one.

[Zero Sum 305]

I enjoy the dialectic. Only wishy-washy folks hide in the shadows claiming there are many hues of gray, satisfying no one.

Those shades of gray is where the science is at. Anything else is being a hack.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Those shades of gray is where the science is at. Anything else is being a hack.

I rest my case.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'll post this before Gary does:

TAX TAX TAX TAX IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, it's highly improbable, if not completely impossible that 'man-made' climate change is what's occuring.

To state that is what it occuring is nothing more than mere speculation and would take several centuries or data, closer to a millennium or more actually (which we do not have)to determine if the effects of man are different than the actual effects of nature.

I know as a species we like to be arrogant and think we rule the universe, but the fact of the matter is, we don't.

This is no different than the BS with the Ozone layer and CFCs and the thought that it was depleting ozone when that wasn't the case at all. Reactionary items to 'theory' are silly as shown there.

And until the answers aren't 'tax tax tax' and actual ideas on how to conserve without tyranny, then it's all a load of ####### anyway and no one really gives a damn about the 'environment.'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess we can add 'expert climatologist' to your list of qualifications, eh Paul

[Zero Sum 305]

I rest my case.

Indeed. Precisely why Algore makes a frequent appearance in your GW posts.

I'll post this before Gary does:

TAX TAX TAX TAX IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though, it's highly improbable, if not completely impossible that 'man-made' climate change is what's occuring.

To state that is what it occuring is nothing more than mere speculation and would take several centuries or data, closer to a millennium or more actually (which we do not have)to determine if the effects of man are different than the actual effects of nature.

I know as a species we like to be arrogant and think we rule the universe, but the fact of the matter is, we don't.

This is no different than the BS with the Ozone layer and CFCs and the thought that it was depleting ozone when that wasn't the case at all. Reactionary items to 'theory' are silly as shown there.

And until the answers aren't 'tax tax tax' and actual ideas on how to conserve without tyranny, then it's all a load of ####### anyway and no one really gives a damn about the 'environment.'

I guess its a waste of time to ask you to substantiate your baseless claims right?

[Dakine10 5,452]

And until the answers aren't 'tax tax tax' and actual ideas on how to conserve without tyranny, then it's all a load of ####### anyway and no one really gives a damn about the 'environment.'

The real answer is a solar powered CO2 converter.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19909/

Unfortunately it does not appear have progressed too much past the idea stage yet.