As always, Conspiracy Theory 101 dictates that when an investigation fails to confirm your tin foil nuttery, it can only mean that the investigation was illegitimate and part of the conspiracy. Previous examples here, here, and here.
Exoneration can only mean that the investigationwasillegitimate. After all, in the eyes of denialists, the only legitimate reviews, investigations, etc. are the ones that reach the conclusions they want.
Protip: They have front groups in other countries, too, fellas.
This is the equivalent of creationists from Russia citing a Discovery Institute “paper” and press release as “US claims evidence for ‘evolution’ has been faked”. Has there ever been a more credulous group of “skeptics” in the history of our species?
From the preeminent conservative media outlet the National Review, we’ve got a lovely demonstration of exactly what I was talking about. As I wrote (all following emphaeses mine):
The code in question appears to “test the sensitivity of certain calculations to the presence or absence” of the post 1960 divergence problem in Briffa’s MXD archive. It does not appear to have been used in any published paper, figure, or data set… In spite of this, if you’ll find claims that this bit of code is in fact… fabricated warming in the global surface temperature record
This post really is quite perfect, as it also cries “hockey stick”, which I also discussed:
It’s odd how some (sticky? viral?) memes propagate through the denialosphere. The classic example is how “hockey stick” lost all of its original context, and soon there was very little that was not a “hockey stick” according to the denialosphere: from the temperature projections in the AR4 to pre-industrial vs. current CO2 levels. And through an apparent belief in sympathetic magic, all it took was the labeling of something as a “hockey stick” in order to discredit it in the eyes of a certain audience.
These geniuses have no idea what they’re looking at, but they are convinced, absolutely convinced, that it’s undeniable proof of Something Nefarious.
If you think that global warming rests on a few temperature data sets and models, you are very wrong. If you don’t understand this then you don’t know enough to have an opinion on the subject, and you most likely will be treated just like any other ineducable troll.
I’m withholding judgment until all of the facts come to light, but so far the “evidence” of conspiracy, wrongdoing, data fudging, etc. is pretty thin gruel. So far the claims seemed to based upon (willful?) equivocation on word meaning, excising of context, and so on. [UPDATE: See RC for more on that.] It’s also apparent that even if the worst possible spin on the allegations ended up being true, the net impact on the state of climate science would be small- certainly relative to the scope that is being claimed.
Amusingly, Roy Spencer whines (in a post referencing former President Bill Clinton’s sex scandal) that the BBC’s first report on the issue doesn’t discuss the contents of the email.
As of this writing, the BBC is the first mainstream news source to cover the story. But instead of discussing the content of any of the e-mails, the BBC is focusing on the illegal nature of the computer system breach. An expert was quoted who alluded to the contentious nature of the global warming debate, and how both sides would resort to tricks to help their side.
That’s pretty rich. If the hacked e-mails — with incriminating content — just happened to be Sarah Palin’s, does ANYONE believe that news reports would avoid disclosing the content of those e-mails?
In any event, I don’t condone misconduct, so if any substantive misdeeds end up having been committed, I’ll gladly add my voice to the chorus of those crying foul. Until then, GHGs are still rising and the paleoclimatological news isn’t getting any better.
*Though subsequent stories did superficially characterize the contents of some emails.
