ClimateGate Schlimate Gate: Panel clears scientists

By GottaLaff

Another Rushpublic talking point down the drain. Yes, all those "nasty, ill-informed" accusations of the so-called e-mail scandal, aka ClimateGate, got Drano'd:

[A] panel of experts tasked with examining the underlying science said it "saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work" by the university's Climatic Research Unit.

That sound you hear is the glugging of unfounded accusations swirling downward...

Instead, "we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers" who did not store their data and working notes as well as they could have but whose science was conducted "with integrity," the committee said in a report released Wednesday.

Glug... glug... into the sewer the accusations go...

So after all the skeptics' denial of, you know, scientific fact about climate change in favor of smearing what turns out to be legitimate research, the panel found that a few scientists fit a watered-down version of the old stereotypical absent-minded professor profile.

In other words, their desks look like our desks, and like us, they pretty much know where everything is under all those piles of Post-Its and crumpled reports. What a crime! Why aren't they in prison getting waterboarded?!

"The fact is we found them absolutely squeaky clean," the head of the panel, Ron Oxburgh, a geologist and former government advisor, told the BBC. He said some of the criticism by skeptics, who pointed to the e-mails as proof of a massive scientific coverup, was "just plain nasty and ill-informed."

Fred MacMurray would be proud.


Now back to saving the planet. Glug.

Federal scientists: Limit offshore drilling plans

By GottaLaff

Once again, attempts are being made to eradicate the ugly, toxic BushCo stain:

The federal government's top ocean scientists are urging the Interior Department to drastically reduce plans to open the coast to offshore oil and gas drilling, citing threats to marine life and potentially devastating effects of oil spills in Arctic waters.

The recommendations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are informal and not binding. But if adopted, they would restrict development in some of the nation's most resource-rich untapped offshore areas and mark a significant departure from the pro-drilling policies of the George W. Bush administration. They also give added -- and official -- weight to environmentalists' concerns.

It's like being held captive and suddenly having the gag and shackles removed. Breathing again sure feels swell, doesn't it?

In a letter sent to Interior officials last month, NOAA recommended excluding large tracts of the Alaska coast, the Atlantic seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico from Interior's draft offshore drilling plan for 2010 to 2015.

NOAA recommends establishing buffer zones around the Southern California Ecological Preserve off Santa Barbara. In addition, it suggests that its broader recommendations, such as taking greater account of drilling's effects on marine life, could affect potential lease sales off California.

The agency calls for a ban on drilling in the Arctic until oil companies greatly improve their ability to prevent and clean up oil spills. And it asks Interior to delay new drilling plans until an Obama administration ocean policy task force completes its work late this year.

The comments, dated Sept. 9 and obtained by the Washington Bureau, were included in a letter to Interior officials from NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco. They include an often sharp critique of the offshore leasing plan, developed under Bush, that would open swaths of the California coast and other areas to new drilling.

NOAA says the leasing plan's assessment of the risks of drilling, such as oil spills, is "understated and generally not supported or referenced."

Isn't it amazing how wrong BushCo was about so many issues, yet how little resistance they got while in office? Cronyism sure comes in handy.

NOAA urges the Minerals Management Service -- the Interior division that handles offshore drilling -- to consider ocean ecosystems, coastal communities and other environmental factors when finalizing a leasing plan.

The agency stresses the challenges of cleaning up an oil spill in remote, icy waters, which NOAA says would be substantially more difficult than cleaning up a spill elsewhere.

The recommendations highlight the competing pressures on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as he weighs whether to amend the Bush-era leasing plan.

Let's see: Profits for Big Oil v. the health of the planet.

Offended scientists blast Gramm-pa McCain

By GottaLaff

First of all, Gramm-pa, scientists are a whole lost smarter than you are. Second, you didn't do your homework... again. Third, isn't this right around the time that you might want to--What's the word? Oh yeah-- cultivate votes?

If there's one rule in election-year politics, it's this: Don't mess with the science crowd. [...]

[H]e punctuated his attack (twice) with this example:

"[Obama] voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"

Turns out, a lot of people think we do. This is no ordinary overhead projector from your 5th grade classroom. The blog Cosmic Variance sums it up:

"If you've ever had the pleasure of visiting the Adler Planetarium, you'd probably guess that the 'overhead projector' he's talking about is the spectacular 'Sky Theater' -- one of the most engrossing, gorgeous venues for displaying visuals about space."

The science community is notoriously tight-knit, especially when rallying to a cause, and boy are they are rallying to this one. Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log has a great summary of the uproar:

-"For McCain to use this as a political zinger is insulting..." (Bad Astronomy)

-"Planetariums are Bridges to the Future, and America would be a much better place if all the congressional earmarks went to projects like them." (The Perfect Silence)

-"The logo for Senator John McCain's campaign has a star in the middle. I wonder what his guide star is? It can't be the same one that ten million children have seen at the Adler Planetarium. Why should anyone want their star to dim?" (Discovery Space)

The Adler Planetarium even issued a statement, noting that the request, ironically, was not even funded:

"To clarify, the Adler Planetarium requested federal support -- which was not funded -- to replace the projector in its historic Sky Theater, the first planetarium theater in the Western Hemisphere.... To remain competitive and ensure national security, it is vital that we educate and inspire the next generation of explorers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math."

[...]McCain probably shouldn't count on the "science vote" this year.

Here's a scientific fact: Gramm-pa McCain is one of the worst presidential candidates in memory.

H/t: One of our Anonymi