Police Close Climategate Investigation

Well, except it's pretty clear that, despite the accusations, the scientists involved did not "falsify data." Again quoting the BBC article [bbc.co.uk]:
"Some of the e-mails released appeared to show scientists at CRU and their collaborators in other institutes deviating from accepted academic standards in an attempt to paint an alarmist picture of climate change. However, examination of the broader context by three separate investigations resulted in the scientists being cleared of malpractice."

Most notably, take a look at the graph in the article [bbcimg.co.uk]. The light blue is the Hadley Climate Research Unit data on temperature. The two other graphs show NASA data and NOAA data for the same period, independently generated from different data sets. The dark blue is the Berkeley data-- this was a project funded by some of the climate skeptics [washingtonpost.com] specifically to do an unbiased re-examination. They all show pretty much the same temperature trend [washingtonpost.com]

In science, ability to replicate results is important. The climate results has it.

So, when you are claiming that they "blatantly falsified data," here is the conspiracy theory that you're supporting:
1. The Hadley CRU is falsifying data to make a point which (if you're right) know will be shown to be false.
2. Three separate investigations in the UK independently conspired to hide the falsification. Yet another investigation, this one in the US, also conspires to hide the falsification.
3. Two US agencies-- on a different continent-- come up with pretty much the same temperature graphs, working on different data sets.
4. An independent analysis put together specifically to avoid the putative bias the other measurements also comes up with the same result, and
5. By an amazing coincidence, the result happens to pretty well fit the predictions of sixteen different climate models made by universities and research institutes on four different continents, many of which are open source (meaning that anybody can search through the code and look for the putative fudge factors), dating back to Manabe and Wetherald's 1967 model, which, as it turns out, agrees quite well with the results.

Or, alternatively: maybe the science is actually right, the scientist actually are not stupid, fraudulent, or deluded (or all of the above), and the climate is warming at pretty much the rate predicted, for the reasons that are well explained by well-known, not-at-all-controversial physics.

Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/P9RAGzGgbnY/police-close-climategate-investigation

utah jazz lawrence of arabia denver nuggets lakers orioles correspondents dinner i am legend