Ah, it's so pleasing to have been proven right.
As was obvious seven months ago, when I wrote "Climate scientist emails show no fraud," several investigations have now concluded that the stolen emails of leading climate researchers leave the science of global warming as it was before:
Proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The Earth is warming to dangerous levels, and humans are responsible for it.
An article from a British newpaper, the Guardian, was headlined "Climategate scientists cleared of manipulating data on global warming."
Announcing the findings, Russell said: "Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said. The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
The main points of the report absolved the researchers of the most serious charges against them. It turned out that they made some minor errors, proving only that they're human -- and get irked when climate change deniers make ridiculous data demands.
Now the big news about "Climategate" should be why the affirmation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings aren't bigger news.
The unfounded charges made on the basis of uninformed readings of selected stolen emails were trumpeted all over the media last year. But I've only seen a few short articles on inside pages of local newspapers about the clearing of those charges against the climate scientists.
Joe Conason correctly says that this debunking should be major news.
Or the reports would dispel doubt, if only the mainstream media showed sufficient interest in correcting the record. For what the probers found is that those embarrassing e-mails, considered in context, undermined neither the basic integrity of the scientists who authored them nor their dire conclusions about the potential impact of carbon dioxide pollution.
After all, global warming legislation is being considered by the U.S. Congress. The public deserves to know that the big uproar over the validity of climate change science was a manufactured scandal, being unfounded in facts.
Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review says the same thing as Conason. Where's the media when their initial reporting turns out to have been way off base?
Over the last two days, two reports have, respectively, reaffirmed the integrity of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the scientists involved in the so-called “Climategate” affair. Unfortunately, while the reports have received a lot of attention in the blogosphere, high-profile coverage in newspapers and magazines has been woefully lacking.
...Indeed, with so much material to work with, it is safe to say some front-page coverage—from The New York Times on down to local papers—is warranted, if not long overdue. It has been a bewildering year where climate science is concerned, and readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.
Yes, just as I said back in November, 2009: "Climate change email hack shows global warming is real." Now that's proven to be true.