With climategate resolved and the scientists cleared is it honest to pretend this is not the case?

No, it will never be "resolved" for deniers, because they try to find any reason they can to deny. Intellectual honesty is never a consideration with them. Just look at the answer by the denier above, who doesn't understand why someone may use computer code for testing purposes, knowing that only they will ever see the results of it--he'd rather interpret that as something sinister.

He asks (well, HE doesn't ask this, because he PLAGIARIZED it without attributions--how's that for honesty?)

"What could their reasons be if no fraud?"

There could be any number of reasons. I think the real reason was as a placeholder, to make a realistic looking graph while waiting for the actual data. As I recall in the final version this chunk of code was not used. Does the denier really think the would try to trick somebody by putting in a piece of code they call "fudge factor"?

EDIT for Ottawa Mike: No, but I remember going through this stuff when it first came out, and how it became clear that this section of the code was not being used. It would be easy enough to prove fraud if this piece of code were being used to generate a graph that was published (and it was claimed to be real data)--but it wasn't. It was just a hatchet job by people who illegally hacked into private computers.

I still find it amusing that Bob plagiarizes other people's words to try and prove dishonesty by scientists--what a laugh.

Further EDIT for Ottawa Mike: After searching, I found that the code was used in a draft paper from 2004, with the "fudge factor" clearly explained in section 4.3 of the paper "4.3. Artificial removal of the recent decline in tree-ring density" There was obviously no attempt to trick anyone by the authors of the code, just by deniers trying to convince people of wrongdoing.

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:Njnn1fHjn0QJ...

No, but since when have global warming deniers ever been honest about anything? Even with themselves - denial is all about lying to yourself. By definition deniers are dishonest people.

The real catastrophe here is in the media. Remember how much press 'Climategate' got? It was in every paper, every news show, everywhere you looked the mainstream media was claiming that climate scientsts were exposed as frauds. Even the freaking Daily Show covered it.

Now several investigations have found the scientists guilty of no wrongdoing, and where's the media coverage? The good climate science blogs covered it, a few of the better newspapers and media outlets, although few gave it the major coverage that they gave 'Climategate'. Most Americans are aware of 'Climategate', but few are aware the scientists were vindicated.

And deniers like Ottawa Mike have the nerve to say the media is biased toward AGW. What a crock.

You don't understand.

half the investigations were by scientists, who will always back up a fellow-scientist.

the other half were by non-scientists, who are not competent to judge.

So the investigations by PSU, UEA, the UK Parliament and so on are all obviously worthless.

And if Cuccinelli says the scientists need to show him every computer record and scrap of paper for the past five years, so that he can count the commas, and after all he is an utterly disinterested man with no political axe to grind, we have no choice but to believe him.

[Sad sarcastic emoticon]

No because mother nature and reality are still the biggest deniers of the global warming scam. All you have to do is look at what the truth deniers claimed was going to happen and what really has happened and you will see the fraud.

Well Bob just answered your question. Honesty is not what they are interested in.

That little piece of code he posted is actually trying to match tree ring data with actual temperature data. The corrections are not errors in the thermometers but tree ring data. All those comments about the thermometers not working are irrelevant and wrong. Don't expect the deniers to correct their errors, they will just keep reporting it over and over hoping that somebody will believe them.

Well, an investigation has been done, and any deniers pretending that scientists are corrupt have been cleared. No wrongdoing whatsoever. ??? Who are you to tell me who I can trust? Do you think I am going to trust an internal, I mean independent, investigation to determine that their own professors or employees are culpable? Not only are they bungling and corrupt, they are stupid to think that they can continue the charade.

No. If Wikipedia says it is most be true. The probe into ClimateGate is over. Doesn't mean the alarmists..err, scientists, were innocent of wrong doing. Why the need to fudge numbers when accordingly to Al Gore, errr, climatologists, the facts are so clear. "Snow at the global warming summit. Say it ain't so."

Lets look at some of the code revealed by climate gate

The programmer has written in helpful notes that us non-programmers can understand, like this one: “Apply a very artificial correction for decline”. You get the feeling this climate programmer didn’t like pushing the data around so blatantly. Note the technical comment: “fudge factor”.

----------------------------------------

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$

2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

----------------------------------------------------

The numbers in a row, in the [ ] brackets, are the numbers the data are to be altered by. If there were no adjustments, they’d all be zero. It’s obvious there is no attempt to treat all the data equally, or use a rigorous method to make adjustments. What could their reasons be if no fraud?

East Anglia Data Adjustments

In 1900-1920: “All thermometers working accurately”.

In 1930: “Stock market crash and global depression causes artificial inflation in temperatures. Corrected, using inverted Dow Jones index until 1940?.

1940: “Due to WWII, briefly, thermometers work again”.

1945: “Artificial rise due to Nagasaki/Hiroshima effect. Compensated.”

1950 – 2000: “Quality control at thermometer factories must be going to pieces. Thermometers are just reading too low, and it kept getting worse until 1970. Instead of demanding the factories get it right, simply adjust the data. Still not enough. Quality control puts air-conditioning exhaust vents close to thermometers in the field, to further counteract apparent factory problem.”

Seems more like deliberate fraud to me.

Like a hacker can get 10 years worth of email. It was an inside whistleblower.

The reviewers had plenty of criticisms of the CRU, they just didn't find any individual researchers were at fault.

This is one reason I have no time for denier rubbish they keep saying we 'alarmists' are lying about everything yet they are the ones who keep getting caught out in the actual lies.