By Summit Voice
SUMMIT COUNTY — Global warming skeptics may have to find a new axe to grind after the Department of Commerce Inspector General reviewed the so-called Climategate emails and found there was no evidence of improper manipulation of data, failure to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures, or failure to comply with Information Quality Act and Freedom of Information Act guidelines.
The infamous e-mails were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in Nov. 2009. Ideologically driven critics of global warming science manipulated the content of the e-mails to make it look like climate scientists were trying to hide and manipulate data.
Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma who is one of the most vocal climate science skeptics, requested the Inspector General to review the emails. The Inspector General report is available online.
“We welcome the Inspector General’s report, which is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists of allegations of mishandling of climate information,” said Mary Glackin, NOAA’s deputy under secretary for operations. “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.”
The Inspector General’s report states specifically:
• “We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network – monthly] GHCN-M dataset.” (Page 11)
• “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA failed to adhere to its peer review procedures prior to its dissemination of information.” (Page 11)
• “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the IQA.” (Page 12)
• “We found no evidence in the CRU emails to suggest that NOAA violated its obligations under the Shelby Amendment.” (Page 16)
The report notes a careful review of eight e-mails that it said “warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data,” that was completed and did not reveal reason to doubt the scientific integrity of NOAA scientists or data.
The report questions the way NOAA handled a response to four FOIA requests in 2007. The FOIA requests sought documents related to the review and comments of part of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. NOAA scientists were given legal advice that IPCC work done by scientists were records of the IPCC, not NOAA. The requesters were directed to the IPCC, which subsequently made available the review, comments and responses which are online at IPCC and http://www.hcl.harvard.edu.
“The NOAA scientists responded in good faith to the FOIA requests based on their understanding of the request and in accordance with the legal guidance provided in 2007,” Glackin said. “NOAA’s policies, practices, and the integrity and commitment of our scientists have resulted in NOAA’s climate records being the gold-standard that our nation and the world has come to rely on for authoritative information about the climate.”
The findings in the Inspector General’s investigation are similar to the conclusions reached in a number of other independent investigations into climate data stewardship and research that were conducted by the UK House of Commons, Penn State University, the InterAcademy Council, and the National Research Council, after the release of the stolen emails All of the reports exonerated climate scientists from allegations of wrong-doing.
Filed under: climate and weather, Colorado, Environment, global warming, Summit County Colorado Tagged: | Climatic Research Unit email controversy, Environment, Global Historical Climatology Network, global warming, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sen James Inhofe, Summit County News, University of East Anglia