Following on last month's disaster (See "A Bad Month for Deniers") and this month's report of new records (See "The Warmest March Ever") comes another nail in the Denier's coffin:
The Commission appointed by the British House of Lords to look into the operations of the CRU, made up of independent reporters from Britain, the US, Switzerland, came up with a similar conclusion to the last studies about their work:
"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
Cleared again - that makes it Climate Scientists 3, Deniers 0 so far...
Here is the complete set of their conclusions:
"1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.
2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.
(Note that in the detailed analysis the professors said that although better statistical methods could have been used, they were sure there would not be significant differences in the final results.)
3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in government.
4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it."
The Entire Report]
Then, in what may be considered a case of "piling on", NOAA has published its complete analysis of weather for March:
"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was the warmest on record at 13.5°C (56.3°F), which is 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This was also the 34th consecutive March with global land and ocean temperatures above the 20th century average."
It's been relatively quiet in the Denialsphere lately... I wonder why?
Oh well, I'm sure the Deniers will get over their shock and start a whole new round of accusations any day now...
Welcome to By 2100!
This Blog is designed to be a Diary of Events illustrating Global Climate Change, and where it will lead.
Commentary is encouraged, but this Blog is not intended for discussion on the Validity of Climate Change.