[Vision2020] Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists

[Ted Moffett]

The Knights Carbonic (
http://www.monbiot.com/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/ ) have been
hard at work with damage control over the hacked emails from the
Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University.  This latest finding
from the Department of Commerce Inspector General reveals the cover-up
to be progressing according to the master plan for total world
domination:

Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of
Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists

Report is the latest independent analysis to clear climate scientists
of allegations of mishandling of climate information

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110224_climate.html

February 24, 2011

At the request of U.S. Sen. Inhofe, the Department of Commerce
Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails stolen
in November 2009 from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and found no evidence
of impropriety or reason to doubt NOAA’s handling of its climate data.
The Inspector General was asked to look into how NOAA reacted to the
leak and to determine if there was 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.

“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.noaanews.noaa.gov/exit.html?http%3A%2F%2Fhcl.harvard.edu%2Fcollections%2Fipcc%2Findex.html.

“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.

The report also asks NOAA to review two instances in which it
transferred funds to CRU. NOAA is conducting a review of funding to
the University of East Anglia and as recommended by Mr. Zinser’s
letter, will be providing a report to his office. NOAA’s review to
date indicates that the funding supported workshops in 2002 and 2003
that helped the governments of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam improve
their climate forecasting abilities.

The report further provides information about the review NOAA
undertook of the emails, and notes that NOAA did not conduct a review
of its data set as a result of the emails because it too determined
that the emails did not indicated any impropriety and because its data
sets and techniques are already regularly reviewed as part of ongoing
quality control measures and are subject to formal peer review.

NOAA’s national and global climate data are available to the public in
raw and adjusted form. The algorithms used to adjust the data sets to
ensure high quality, useful records, are peer-reviewed and available
to the public.

NOAA is committed to quality, scientific excellence and transparency
and strives to provide the most authoritative and accurate information
about the Earth’s climate, oceanic and atmospheric conditions. In the
face of ongoing climate variability and climate change, this
information is critical to businesses and people in all industries and
communities as they plan for the future. NOAA is working to provide
ever-improving regional and industry-specific climate information to
meet the growing demand for this information.

The Inspector General report is available online.

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett