Not exact matches
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.»
The last of the debris surrounding the Climategate debacle has been swept away, with Thursday's release of a
report from the Commerce Department's Office of Inspector
General (OIG)- in essence it clears National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (
NOAA) scientists of any wrong - doing.
Although
NOAA were minor players in the Climategate letters, the recent
report from the Inspector
General of the US Department of Commerce (re
NOAA) is the first
report to date in which the investigators made any effort to crosscheck evidence from Climategate correspondents against independent sources.
Further to Agnostic's remarks, a fundamental communications problem with
NOAA's
reports on climate in
general is the cognitive dissonance introduced when the public is frequently invited to compare the latest complete year's surface temperature record with that of other years.
For instance, the global average temperature (as
reported by
NOAA, Hadley / CRU and NASA / GISS ground - based measurements, as well as RSS and UA - H satellite based measurements) has failed to increase in the 21st century the way the
General Circulation Models have said they should despite the fact that CO2 has been rising unabated.
The Inspector
General of the Department of Commerce (to which
NOAA belongs) has recently
reported on an investigation of issues arising out of the Climategate emails.
This finding was backed up by an August 2011 U.S.
General Accounting Office investigation and
report titled: Climate Monitoring:
NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network
Steve McIntyre has posted part of a
report prepared by the
NOAA Inspector
General which includes the following comment: «CRU email # 1212073451.
-LSB-...] «Sensitivity training directly on the battlefield» sounds like something libs would do
NOAA Misrepresents Inspector
General Report New report exonerates U.S. climate researchers What would you expect from this -LS
Report New
report exonerates U.S. climate researchers What would you expect from this -LS
report exonerates U.S. climate researchers What would you expect from this -LSB-...]
NOAA even puts the IG's efforts at par with the efforts of others with dubious distinctions: «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
NOAA press release dated Feb 24, 2011 entitled» Inspector
General's Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong - Doing by
NOAA Climate Scientists» contains a statement which is contradicted by the
report of the Inspector
General
Well, if you actually read the Inspector
General's
report, as opposed to
NOAA's press release, that is not exactly he said.