Published on February 25th, 2011 | by Tom Schueneman6
Climategate: One More Investigation, Still No Basis for Accusations of Misconduct
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is dogged in his pursuit to expose global warming as the “largest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind” – even if he has to perpetrate a few hoaxes of his own to prove it. You’ve got to admire a man with such determination, to a point. And that point is where his determination abandons reality, which Inhofe’s did many years ago.
All too eager to climb up on the “Climategate” bandwagon, Inhofe called for an investigation by the inspector general of the Commerce Department into “wrongdoing” by climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Made for TV
As you’ll remember, Climategate roared onto the headlines only days before the start of the COP15 climate conference in December of 2009. Thousands of emails were stolen from the Climate Research Center of East Anglia University in the UK between leading international climate scientists, including some from the NOAA.
Inhofe running in circles
Of the thousands of hacked emails a handful contained frank discussions that occasionally employed harsh and unprofessional language that revealed an unappealing antagonism toward their antagonizers. It was enough for a great media-blitz wail of accusation – corrupt scientists manipulating data in order to, well, we’re back to Inhofe’s hoax.
Inhofe wasn’t the first to call for an independent investigation to look for scandal. And after numerous independent investigations of everyone involved, on both sides of the Atlantic, there remains no evidence of any manipulated data at the behest of climate scientists.
Including the latest investigation called for by Inhofe.
The inspector general reported back to Inhofe this week that scientists for NOAA had not altered data, there was no evidence of any wrongdoing – still.
“In our review of the CRU emails,” the report concluded, “we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.”
It makes you wonder who’s perpetrating the hoax.
Image Credit: Treehugger.com