Following vindications from the NRC panel, the independent Penn State Committee, the House of Commons report, the International Panel, the Penn state Investigatory Committee, the Independent Climate Change Email Review has reported

On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. … we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. … But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness

On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not
in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. … On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence
of bias. … We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. … On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial
process we find no evidence to substantiate this … On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld

Yes, it’s another vindication. Steve McIntyre isn’t admitting that he got it wrong, continuing to insist that Briffa broke IPCC rules while writing AR4. Oddly enough McIntyre fails to quote these IPCC rules that he alleges were broken. Where’s the transparency?

See also comments by climate scientists and McKitrick, RealClimate and Damian Carrington’s live blog.


  1. #1 jakerman
    July 15, 2010

    >*After falling 9 999ft without incident skeptic declares impacts of theory of gravity proved false…*

    They didn’t wait that long to decalare victory, and they pushed out the most vulnerable first.

  2. #2 toby robertson
    July 18, 2010

    Scientists vindicated?
    “Dear Dr Mcintyre,
    Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study.
    Yours sincerly,
    Ron Oxburgh”
    Convincing science?

  3. #3 chek
    July 19, 2010

    So [toby]( I take it you’re a McIntrye fan who refuses to believe that climategate is dead?
    The quote you draw attention to hinges entirely on the interpretation of the word “accuracy”, but even given the error bars inherent in [these multiple studies]( it is apparent that modern gobal temperatures exceed those of the relevant period of the past.
    You’d think McinTyres would learn by now that selective quotation invariably ends up with him and his believers looking foolish and worse.
    He should leave the science to actual scientists. Hobbyists like him are out of their depth.

  4. #4 toby robertson
    July 19, 2010
  5. #5 frank
    July 19, 2010

    Shorter toby robertson:

    I spam some links, therefore the inquiries are invalid.

  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    July 19, 2010

    Actually, Toby has a point.

    The CRU inquiry should have been conducted by a panel composed of:

    – Sen. Inhofe
    – Andrew Bolt
    – Ian Plimer
    – Joanne Codling
    – Anthony Watts
    – Piers Akerman
    – Christopher Monckton
    – Melanie Phillips
    РNils-Axel M̦rner

    *Then* it would have been an inquiry we could trust.

    (I feel queasy).

  7. #7 MFS
    July 19, 2010

    Vince (#106),

    You’re forgetting Sarah Palin.

  8. #8 chek
    July 19, 2010

    Vince, strangely – or should that be predicatably – a similar conclusion has been reached at [The Climate Scum](

  9. #9 Vince Whirlwind
    July 19, 2010

    THANKS, MFS, just when I managed to forget Sarah Palin, you go and remind me…

  10. #10 J Bowers
    July 19, 2010

    Re. 104

    Interesting quote from the New Scientist:

    “They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU.”

    Sir Muir Russell and the panel would be in their graves by the time that was accomplished. I can see the denial blogosphere having plenty of fun with the years it’d take to go through that many with any degree of scrutiny… and still call it a whitewash.

    New Scientist is far from perfect as Dawkins, Myers and Egan found out. Now, if Nature was to write such an piece….

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.