Spiegel does 8 part series on current state of climate research

Spiegel does 8 part series on current state of climate research“. Anthony Watts tells us about this Spiegel Online article series that ” features Steve McIntyre prominently, and [is] well worth the read.”

The series starts with an already out-dated credulous rehash of the Climategate “scandal”. I guess it is a “worth the read” if you want to return to the time when wishful thinking could allow denialists to think that Climategate was merely a baseless political attack and not a completely rejected baseless political attack.

The remaining articles are a weakly argued denialist gruel of innuendo and mischaracterization (“alarmists” and the “levelheaded”) that heavily and uncritically quotes denialist pundits and “researchers”. Entertaining perhaps, but neither accurate nor insightful. Too bad.

Results of the Climategate Paliamentary Inquiry in the UK

Results of the Climategate Paliamentary Inquiry in the UK“. (Yes, Anthony Watts can’t spell “Parliamentary”) Looks like Climategate isn’t the “final nail in the coffin of Global Warming” after all. Sorry Anthony, you’re going to have to keep bellowing. But perhaps the next few days are good ones for keeping a low profile.

The House of Commons press release is here. Click here to read the full report, The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. [Update: Volume II, the oral and written evidence is also available. There is some entertaining denialist posturing contained within!]

About “sharing data.” (all italics mine)

On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

About the “trick”:

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails-”trick” and “hiding the decline”-the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

About accusations of “dishonesty” against Dr. Phil Jones (this was particularly nasty and unfounded):

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

About the  FOI requests:

On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU.

No doubt Anthony or Steve McIntyre will find something to get outraged about, but this looks like a clean sweep for Dr. Phil Jones and the Climate Research Unit. This is a good day for science.

Climategate: The CRUtape Papers

Here’s our first coverage of a Watts Up With That? post!

Yesterday Anthony Watt promoted a friend’s breathless self-published analysis of the CRU e-mails, Climategate: The CRUtape Letters. (Some of the unguarded personal correspondence to and from climatologists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was illegally obtained and released by unknown parties in November of 2009.) From published excerpts the authors seem to have added a layer of self-congratulatory “context” to guide willing readers toward their conclusions while studiously ignoring any credible explanations.

The trumpeted revelations of collusion and fraud purportedly in these e-mails were presented as a fatal indictment of the evidence for global warming as well as the reputations of the climatologists in question. When the shouting died down the e-mails proved to show no evidence of data tampering or scientific obstruction. The accusations were fabricated from out of context phrases, presented in deliberately misleading ways, or ignored common scientific usage in favour of disingenuously naïve interpretations. Much was also made over remarks about out-dated programming code fragments that were never in fact used in published research. See The Associated Press’s analysisNature’s Dec. 3rd 2009 editorial. If the data sets these attacked climatologists use are excluded from global temperature trend plots there is effectively no difference in the result.

Anthony also quotes their praise of his own surfacestations.org project, an ill-conceived Scout Troop-style project that failed in its attempt to prove that “bad” urban weather station data was giving a false impression of warming. (See here and here.)

The curious book title is presumably an allusion to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis’ fictional correspondence between two demons about their failed attempts to corrupt a devout Christian. Denialists often try to paint conventional understanding of climate change as inflexible religious or political dogma, but in this particular instance the allusion suggests that the climatologist’s purported deceits have not “shaken the faith” of denialists.

2012-07-19 Update: Norfolk police have called off their investigation for procedural reasons, but state:

“However, as a result of our inquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct inquiries. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”