This was just released by the AMS, source is here.
I’m reposting here in its entirety. h/t to Mark Johnson
Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change
AMS Headquarters has received several inquiries asking if the material made public following the hacking of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has any impact on the AMS Statement on Climate Change, which was approved by the AMS Council in 2007 and represents the official position of the Society.
The AMS Statement on Climate Change continues to represent the position of the AMS. It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society. The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.
The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. This process, which is tied intrinsically to the procedures leading to publication of research results in the peer-reviewed literature, allows the scientific community to confirm some results while rejecting others. It also, in a sense, lessens the impact of any one set of research results, especially as the body of research on any topic grows. The AMS plays an important role in the scientific process through its peer-reviewed publications, as well as through its many other activities, such as scientific conferences. The Society strives to maintain integrity in the editorial process for all its publications.
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.
The AMS encourages ethical behavior in all aspects of science and has established a record of affirming the value of scientists presenting their research results “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts” (see AMS Statement on the Freedom of Scientific Expression).
Keith L. Seitter, CCM
Executive Director
Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693
DC Office: 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC, 20005-3826
amsinfo@ametsoc.org Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718
© 2006 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer
When it comes to research funding, shouldn’t we be questioning our respective representatives (Governments) as to why pro-AGW receive/received the bulk of funds to prove the scare rather fund scientists to test and/or disprove. As a layperson, it seems to me that our goverments are complicit.
Ron O’Knox Melb Australia
> Skeptic Tank (15:19:09) :
>
>Global warming is indeed man-made.
>
>And it was made by surprisingly few men.
When the most extreme among the warming-alarmists have shouted that the only and final solution is a drastic reduction of the population, I recoiled in Horror! There are over 6 billion (that is US billion) people; the thought is abhorrent!
If they only meant a drastic reduction of the population of top climate scientists, I might come on-board.
Missing the entire point here the AMS hits us with:
“The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results”
The colusion and manipulation here has been preventing this statement from being anything other than wishful thinking for many years.
David above stated: “Hadley CRU is one of four major contributors to the global temperature record. Some of the damning emails are from NASA GISS, one of the other major contributors. That’s 50% of what the AMS relied on for its judgement about global warming.”
The other two databases are from satellite observations, which are calibrated to the two terrestrial databased–the Hadley CRU and NASA GISS, for crying out loud.
That means 100% of the databases are fraudulent. 100 PERCENT!
Where’s Scotland Yard when you need them?
The new meaning of peer review:
CRU scientist: “Hey Eddie, look this over – I’m sending it off to Scientific American in the morning.”
Eddie (putting on his coat to leave at the end of the day): “Uh, sure.” Scans it over quickly. “Did you spell check?”
CRU Scientist: “Yup, even checked the thesaurus to replace a couple words I used too repetitively.”
Eddie: “Gotta run, have to grab a quick bite at home and get the kids to hockey practice.”
CRU Scientist: “Can I put down your name as a reviewer?”
Eddie (on his cell to his wife whose asking him about dinner): “Sure, cook up anything you like. I’m easy.”
And thus was cooking of climate data born.