From what I can tell about “Climategate”, there were two comments made in the thousands of emails obtained that were most often used to show that scientists were falsifying results.1."The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".This comment was interpreted by climate change skeptics as saying the scientist needed to show that temperature was increasing when it didn’t look like it actually was. Looked at in the context of the email however, the scientist was actually saying that they needed better monitoring of the flows of energy that were causing the temperature increases that WERE observed.2. A scientist said he used "Mike's Nature trick" in a graph "to hide the decline" in temperatures. Again, this comment was interpreted by skeptics as an admission of falsifying data to hide the fact that temperature was actually not increasing. In the proper context though, this email is clearly about addressing the “divergence problem,” which has to do with correlating air temperatures with tree ring density. “Mike’s Nature trick” referred to a recent calculation technique from the journal Nature, which was created to try to estimate proper past air temperatures from studying trees.An editorial in Nature (along with Science, one of the two most important scientific journals in the world). Called Climategate closed, beginning:“The case of the alleged misbehaviour of climate researchers at the University of East Anglia is now closed. The last of the three reports on the science and conduct of the researchers was published on 7 July. Taken together, the independent investigations come to the conclusion that the scientific results produced at the University of East Anglia are sound, but that there are deficiencies in the transparency of climate research, at this university and elsewhere.”The Associated Press and FactCheck also did extensive studies, and found that there was no evidence of falsified data coming from the leaked emails. If your answer to this is that the editorial board of the journal Nature is part of the coverup, then you and I have very different ideas about how the scientific community works.
DiscoGary wrote:
Please review the IPCC East Anglia Climate Gate scandal where you can read the emails of top IPCC "scientists" where they conspire to keep contradictory data from making it into journals by corrupting the peer review process. They demonstrated that not only were they NOT looking for the truth, they were actively suppressing it... just like we see all the Global Warmists doing on this site.
It's politics, mythology, religion, and big business. But it aint science.