Climategate Heads Up

|

The Independent Climate Change Email Review panel is scheduled to release its findings tomorrow. Earlier reviews have exonerated the climatologists involved of wrong-doing. In advance of tomorrow's report, The Guardian quotes climatologist Mike Hulme:

"The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer," said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. "The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance."

And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how "astonishing" it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. "The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all." He believes that will now happen.

More openness is all to the good. Tomorrow, we'll see if the game changes or not. Stay tuned.

Advertisement

NEXT: Kagan and Free Speech: Good News and Bad News

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Double Post

    1. Someone needs to tell AlGore, that walking talking piece of human excrement, that the science isn’t fucking settled.

  2. The first one was exonerated.

  3. Wait, I thought the science was settled…

    If it’s not, can we really trust ANYTHING that we’re spoon fed?

  4. I’m just hoping that this won’t release anyone’s chakra.

  5. So the denial industry won’t even have to hack into private email accounts anymore to cherry pick its ‘evidence’ for a giant global conspiracy of scientists to enrich Al Gore?

    1. Tony: Are you prejudging the results of the review? 🙂

      1. No, but I’ll be happy to judge the review itself. For the record, I don’t think we need a panel to decide whether there were indeed witches in Salem.

    2. Thank god. This will make our operations so much more efficient.

      RELEASE THE SECOND CHAKRA!

    3. Evidence of “hacking”? None. Leaked data is far more likely an explanation.

      Download the file yourself and see how the whole package was compiled, organized, and labeled. Work most likely done by someone who was familiar with the the center’s data, as opposed to an outsider.

      Or believe whatever makes you feel better.

      1. I believe that nobody’s mind is gonna change. Anyone invested enough in science denialism certainly won’t respect the results of any review that exonerates the people whose presumed guilt played so large a role in their narrative of the world.

        1. Science denialism? Is that anything like priapism?

        2. I believe that nobody’s mind is gonna change

          Especially not yours, right, Tony?

          Projection: it’s not just a shitty TV format any more.

          1. The scientists will likely be exonerated for the most part, so why would I have to?

            1. Enough with the spoofing, ok? Try growing up.

              1. I consider having a spoofer a badge of honor, so thank you for confirming how threatening my wisdom is to libertarian dogma.

                1. Still vainly trying to impersonate a sentient being, eh?

                2. You flatter yourself, Tony.

          2. No, but this planet is headed for certain destruction unless western governments rein in rampant consumerism. The health of this planet is inversely proportional to economic growth. Slowing down our economy just means conservatives won’t be able to afford that second SUV or McMansion.

            1. Ya, cause only conservatives have SUVs and McMansions. See the daily links for a little reference and reality.

            2. Something tells me that a higher market price for energy will affect far more than the ability of conservatives to buy an suv. Oh something like the ability of the poorest people in the world to get their products to market…..

            3. Re: Tony,

              No, but this planet is headed for certain destruction unless western governments rein in rampant consumerism.

              The other day I saw Shutter Island, about a guy with a persecution complex similar to yours…

              To the main character’s credit, though, he did not see rampant consumerism . . . he was more stable than that. Just a wee bit more.

            4. What Western governments do or don’t counts for diddly as long as China is building a coal-fired power plant every week.

            5. No, but this planet is headed for certain destruction unless western governments rein in rampant consumerism. The health of this planet is inversely proportional to economic growth. Slowing down our economy just means conservatives won’t be able to afford that second SUV or McMansion.

              So why would you want the government to continue with bailouts and stimulus packages?

              1. That’s not the real me and I don’t believe that. I believe that transitioning to clean energy is absolutely imperative to maintain economic prosperity.

      2. indeed. The best guess is that it was prepared for a Freedom of Information request (or whatever it’s called in the UK). The Center fought long and hard against releasing anything, and so somebody on the inside decided to leak it.

    4. I applied for a job at Denial Industries. I was denied.

  6. It sounds like they plan on fudging the raw data and then distributing it “openly” to everybody, so that everyone will have access to the same medium rare data.

    My prediction:
    This data will prove we need carbon taxes.

    1. Not carbon taxes … Cap’n Trade.

      Cap’n Trade is favored because, in addition to huge national revenues from emission rights auctions, it creates all sorts of opportunities for political favors, huge trading opportunities for the likes of Goldman, and the potential for a global currency that could operate in parallel with national currencies.

      A carbon tax is just a tax.

  7. A government commission exonerating government employees who conspired to extend the reach and power of government?

    Color me, well, bored.

    1. That’s how Tony can be confident in the findings.

  8. Earlier reviews have exonerated the climatologists involved of wrong-doing.

    Lysenko:
    We protect our own.

  9. Does anyone find engaging with Chony or Tad edifying? I’m wondering whether I should go to the trouble of writing a Mozilla addon that would just delete their posts. I know that free debate is good for us all, but debating these two is like jacking off Obama’s hippo brigade: it’s exhausting and pointless and at the end truly unsatisfying.

  10. NEWS: “there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness”, notable over complying with Freedom of Information (FoI) requests.”

    Hey, failing to display the proper degree of openness is typically in sync with HAVING SOMETHING TO HIDE like cooked books or data. Who spearheaded the major investigation of the CRU? AlGore the Carbon Hore (aka “The Poodle”)?

    Oh, and its’ so fun to see scientific morphology at work. g l o b a l w a r m i n g takes on tarnish as it’s scrutinized so all media shifts to c l i m a t e c h a n g e. Too funny!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.