Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Federal climate scientists whose e-mails were leaked in the debate over climate change did nothing wrong, concludes an investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department's inspector general.

The IG report, released Thursday, is the latest to exonerate climate scientists whose e-mails with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at England's University of East Anglia were stolen and publicized in November 2009. It reviewed all 1,073 leaked e-mails but focused on 289 involving scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M (Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures," Todd Zinser wrote in a letter to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who had requested the probe.

Climate change skeptics have tried to use some of the e-mails to suggest scientists altered data or made mistakes. Yet the scientists have been cleared of wrongdoing in several independent investigations, including those by the United Kingdom's House of Commons, the National Research Council and Pennsylvania State University.

"None of the investigations have found any evidence to question the ethics of our scientists or raise doubts about NOAA's understanding of climate change science," said Mary Glackin, NOAA's deputy under secretary for operations, in announcing the IG's findings.

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think I would call it a "GOP Probe." It was requested by a Republican but the request was to the Department of Commerce Inspector General's office. So it was a Federal Government Department assessing one of its own offices.

That doesn't mean they aren't correct. But it's not like it was a review by an entity that has no association with NOAA.

biobengal wrote:Unfortunately, the facts of the matter are inconsequential, the damage has been done.

CID1990 wrote:Hmm.

Here I was thinking that the issue wasn't the potential manipulation of data, but the selective issuance of data. There's a big difference, but they are both dishonest. Some of those emails do allude to not releasing counterproductive data and findings.

Personally, I am a climate agnostic. The issue has become way to politicized for there to NOT be manipulation on BOTH sides, and I think that this will ultimately hamper our ability to get to the real truth of the matter. There is definitely some bad science bolstering the case right now.

That said, it is likely that if climate change IS anthropogenic and WILL affect the globe in predicted ways, there is no way we will ever do anything about it. So sit back and enjoy your year-long growing season.