BBC, Economist, AP, etc: Brit Parliament committee says the East Anglia climate scientists were ornery, but didn’t fake data
....Greenhouse with transparency
A big expected but somehow leaden thud of news today from Britain, where looks like nearly every outlet is leaping upon it. Those fellows at the Climatic Research Unit who kicked off the so-called Climate Gate and wrote a bunch of snarky mean emails that got hacked and exposed may have been grubby about sharing data with skeptics, but they didn’t fool with the data in order to fool the world, the IPCC, or anybody else about which way the climate is headed. So says, it appears, members of a Parliamentary inquiry into their their ethics. The science seems to have survived nicely, but their behavior toward fools.., – er, skeptics of the bloggy rightwing sort – fell short.
Maybe it’s sort of like the Freedom of Information Act, a law in the US that has its counterpart in the UK. Just because it’s a communist or a fascist or somebody you just don’t like who is doing the asking is no reason to say no or to just say nothing. Initial news stories seem to be unsure whether to lead on the basic validation of mainstream climate science, or on the petty behavior of mainstream scientists under siege. Some do both.
Consider the contrast in these two headlines (and the accompanying stories providing the same essential news):
- Guardian – James Randerson: Climate researchers ‘secrecy’ criticised – but MPs say science remains intact; A left-leaning paper, generally supportive of action to slow climate change, lets readers know that the scientists’ behavior was not always the best when dealing with doubting adversaries – but it quickly moves on the declare their professional science as up to good standards.
- Telegraph – Louise Gray: University of East Anglia refused to share information on global warming / … behaved in a ‘reprehensible’ manner by refusing to relase research behind the science of global warming, according to MPs ; The more right-inclined newspaper hits the bad behavior of the researchers a lot harder. But, one must say, forthrightly tells readers that for all the tut-tutting, there is no evidence that the university or its affiliated Climatic Research Unit manipulated data.
One suspects this development will have little impact, at least not right off, on the Climategate express that continues to roar through popular culture, the media, and various levels of government around the world. For one thing, a gang of elected politicians is hardly the caliber of reviewers that will need to go through CRU and IPCC records and standards with any chance all factions will pay attention.
Other stories:
- The Economist: Climategate’s culture: British MPs are concerned about the way climate scientists have worked, but not about their results;
- NPR (blog) Mark Memmott: ‘Climategate’ Report Mostly Clears Scientists, But Raps Secrecy ;
- Register – Andrew Orlowski : MPs to Climategate boffins: Keep Calm and Carry On ;
- CNN: UK lawmakers take heat off “Climategate’ scientist ;
- Bloomberg – Alex Morales: UK Climate Science ‘Damaged’ by Leaked E-Mails ; Focusses on intransigence, very little in this story on the clearance given the underlying science – which it does say is the target of a different, upcoming inquiry.
- BBC – Roger Harrabin: Climate science must be more open, say MPs ;
- Reuters – Peter Griffiths: Climate Unit Cleared of Data Manipulation, Criticized for Stonewalling Skeptics ;
Other Climate Science & Policy News:
- Reuters – Erik Kirschbaum: German film offers answers to Gore clmate concerns ; It says renewables can provide all the green energy we want.
- E & E ClimateWire/Scientific American – Evan Lehmann: Who Funds Contrariness in Climate Change? ; Greenpeace is the main source, and it has its finger pointed at one US industrial conglomerate.
- Charlie Petit
