9 Responses to The first rule of vindicating climate science is you do not talk about vindicating climate science
UK Government: “It is a primary concern to the Government that the evidence base for policies is robust. Where this evidence base is questioned, it is right that allegations are properly assessed and scrutinised. After two independent reviews, and two reviews by the Science and Technology Committee, we find no evidence to question the scientific basis of human influence on the climate….
“Evidence from multiple disciplines and sources strongly indicates that climate change, driven by human activities, poses real risks for our future. This evidence is comprehensively captured in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and in more recent analyses including from the US National Research Council of the National Academies. It is also clear from an almost continuous body of publications in the academic literature that the evidence for human induced climate change continues to grow….”
You won’t find much U.S. media coverage of the official UK “Government Response” to “The Reviews into the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails” by the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons.
I think that is because:
- It re-re-re-re-vindicates climate scientists, and since the media glossed over the first three vindications, why start now?
- It didn’t involve a wedding.
There is a pretty good BBC story, “Climate e-mail reviews ‘leave science sound’.” Here’s more from the Government Response. First, their bottom line:
The findings of the Committee give us confidence in our judgement that the conclusions are well thought through and that no events at CRU undermine the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change.
What about the claim that CRU had somehow been trying to undermine the peer review process? The Science and Technology Committee had said:
The conclusions reached by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER) are in line with our predecessor Committee’s findings that “the evidence they saw did not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process and that academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers”. We stand by this conclusion and are satisfied with the detailed analysis of the allegations by the ICCER.
The UK Government agrees with that conclusion:
The Government notes the Committee’s conclusion that there was no evidence of attempts to subvert the peer review process, and agrees that academics should not be criticised for commenting informally on academic papers, noting that constructive criticism and challenge is fundamental to ensuring a robust scientific approach.
There are various issues surrounding the Oxburgh and Muir-Russell inquiries, which the response deals with and which The Carbon Brief summarizes in its post, “The science is solid, it is time to move on – the UK government view on climategate.”
Last year, the science journal Nature editorialized, “Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.” Apparently the rules of climate science street fight club only apply to the climate science side of things, since the anti-science disinformers can pretty much talk about anything they want and get coverage.
If anyone can find any serious U.S. media coverage of this, please post it.
The bottom line is that climate science remains as solid as ever, which is what people ought to be reporting on and worrying about (see “A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice, The first anniversary of ‘Climategate': The media blows the story of the century”).