Second CRU Inquiry is Out - Conclusion: "Climate Gate" Conspiracy Nuts are Retarded

[Cypress]

The Second CRU inquiry report: “Climate Gate” Conspiracy Theorists are Bug Nuts Crazy and are Hyper-Partisans who Don’t Understand Science

The Oxburgh report on the science done at the CRU has now been published and….. as in the first inquiry, they find no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of the results to a preconceived agenda, though they do suggest more statisticians should have been involved.

They have also some choice words to describe the critics.

Shorter version: No conspiracy, no misleading, no scientific manipulation.

Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit.

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.

After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling and statistical methodology. The Unit freely admits that many data analyses they made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way today.

We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the
dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...sessment+Panel


foot note:

For information on the First Inquiry Debunking of the Climate Gate conspiracy nut jobs, refer to the British House of Commons Inquiry at

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=25214



Footnote 2:

The Non-partisan Factcheck.org debunks the Climate Gate Conspiracy Theorists here:

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

[tinfoil]

LOL retard!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...aggerated.html


'Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated
The 'hockey stick' that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using 'inappropriate' methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society.

[Cypress]

Interesting that your article cites Dr. Hand as it's source.


Here's what Dr. Hand - the guy YOU are citing - says

Prof Hand said his criticisms should not be seen as invalidating climate science. He pointed out that although the hockey stick graph – which dates from a study led by US climate scientist Michael Mann in 1998 – exaggerates some effects, the underlying data show a clear warming signal.

He accused sceptics (like Tinfoil) of “identifying a few particular issues and blowing them up” to distort the true picture. The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. “If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-4...44feab49a.html

Too late for you to try to put lipstick on a pig, man.

The expert YOU cite says you climate deniers are full of crap.

And you spent MONTHS claiming that climate gate was a conspiracy based on lying, manipulation, and scientific fraud.

Every investigation into this, by professionals, have come to the exact opposite conclusion as you did. Why? Because they don't read rightwing blogs and british tabloids for "science" news, like you do.

[tinfoil]

statisitcal fraud has been the cornerstone of my criticism. go seach my posts.

[tinfoil]

Interesting that your article cites Dr. Hand as it's source.


Here's what Dr. Hand - the guy YOU are citing - says





Too late for you to try to put lipstick on a pig, man.

The expert YOU cite says you climate deniers are full of crap.

And you spent MONTHS claiming that climate gate was a conspiracy based on lying, manipulation, and scientific fraud.

Every investigation into this, by professionals, have come to the exact opposite conclusion as you did. Why? Because they don't read rightwing blogs and british tabloids for "science" news, like you do.

hey dumbass, it's been proven that you can get fired for not following along with the AGW alarmists in charge. Nobody is suprised when someone tows the line.

It's like a preist vouching for the pope.

Did Hand test all the work? Where's the data, dickhead? It's still missing

[tinfoil]

“If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.

BS apologist rhetoric. The IPCC report was touted as the BEST POSSIBLE SCIENCE.

THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER!


Fuck you, cypress. For your type of believer, there is no amount of evidence of fraud to shake the religious fervor.

Go buy some carbon crdits, you fuckhead

[Canceled]

Isn't it funny watching them try to put the bloom back on the rose?

[Cypress]

“If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.

BS apologist rhetoric. The IPCC report was touted as the BEST POSSIBLE SCIENCE.

THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER!


Fuck you, cypress. For your type of believer, there is no amount of evidence of fraud to shake the religious fervor.

Go buy some carbon crdits, you fuckhead

So, now your contention is that the scientist YOU YOURSELF provided to sustain your crackpot theory, is himself a liar?

Hilarious!

Take away message from thread:

Tinfoil, and his merry band of climate conspiracy theorists, spent months braying like donkeys that it was proven that there was a vast global conspiracy of Marxist climate scientists who lied, manipulated, and committed scientific fraud.

Now that several professional investigations have concluded that there was no manipulation and fraud, the conspiracy nutjob theorists have been reduced to mindless and angry blather that the investigators are lying.


The bottom line for anyone who stumbles across this thread is this:

Do you believe the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; an International Panel of qualified scientists, and the non-partisan Factcheck.org? Do you believe that the world’s most expert and qualified scientific organizations, like the US National Academy of Sciences and NASA, have been easily duped by lying climate scientists from across the planet?

Or do you believe that Tinfoil, Dixie, Damocles, and Bravo have discovered a vast global conspiracy of lying scientists?




Good times! My work here is done.

.

[Cypress]

Isn't it funny watching them try to put the bloom back on the rose?

Sorry man, you Climate Denier Jihadists were denied. Yet again. Does anyone get egg on their face more than you? Just curious.

Dude, I told you not to read Drudge or PajamasMedia/blogspot.com for science information. But did you listen to me? Nope! Bummer about that....

Let’s review the qualifications of this most recent inquiry committee, shall we? I think they might be a tad more qualified than Drudge, Redstate.com, and the other denizens of the wingnutosphere that you read for “science” news.

The Review team

The Independent Climate Change Email Review is being conducted by an expert team, led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE.

The Review team has more than 100 years’ collective expertise of scientific research methodology and a wide range of scientific backgrounds.

None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).[ More information about each of the review team members can be found in the Biographies section.

http://www.cce-review.org/About.php

Now, haven’t you and the other Climate Denier Jihadists buffoons made a career out of vacuous and uninformed claims that Climate Scientists are faking their science on the premise that they can make big bucks and fame off of a high profile “politically” charged environmental issue?

The Independent Review Panel:

“We believe that CRU did a public service of great value by carrying out much time-consuming meticulous work on temperature records at a time when it was unfashionable and attracted the interest of a rather small section of the scientific community.”

Oops…..Cue wingnut whining…..



Hey Dixie, remember when you are your George Bush-supporting, science-denying flock of righwing blog-reading compadres were howling with glee and high fiving that these Climate researchers had been caught red handed lying about their data, in some bizarre and ill-conceived scheme to promote environmental Marxism?

Oddly enough, professional independent investigators not only found your claims baseless, but they called you knuckle-dragging, medieval Denialists out on the carpet. Are you going to take that from some pin-headed scientists and academic researchers?

The Independent Review Panel:

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…..

...it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted.

I told you a long time ago that you were getting bad information from your rightwing blogs, and that you should stop turning to Professor Matt Drudge for any plausible scientific news. Sorry about the egg on your face, I tried to warn you, bro’!

But there’s always hope for you. I know you don’t believe in Evolutionary biology, as modern science has demonstrated it. But, next time you want actual, credible, and informed climate science information, I suggest bailing on Sarah Palin’s facebook page, and going to these sites instead. .


http://www.nasa.gov/

http://www.nationalacademies.org/

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html



P.S.: Cheers, and here's to looking forward to you actually reading credible scientific information, based on the organizations and links I provided above.

Oh, and please stop begging me to read some rightwing blog, or some rightwing editorial article from some Climate Denier Jihadists. My time is to important to waste on that useless, and uniformed crap-ola. Sorry, man!

[Superfreak]

1) No statistically significant warming in the past 15 years - phil jones

2) No evidence to support that we are warmer today than during the medieval period. The data that does exist supports the contrary... though not enough data for the globe to be conclusive.

3) Again... the data being 'lost' or deleted because it was 'too hard to store' is a sign of bad science.

4) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore all of the data and instead cling to his 'u guyz should stop reading right wing blogs' line of bullshit.

5) Again.... when the 'reports' as to what occurred are done by the very organizations/groups that have a vested interest in their global warming fear mongering, I would say only a completely brain dead moron would believe the very people who lied to us in the first place.

6) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore the benefit these governments, government agencies and groups funded by the BILLIONS of dollars have by being the global warming fear mongering that they are. The governments gain more control over lemmings like Cypress, the Government agencies get more control and the groups like East Anglia get billions to continue the myth of AGW.

7) Again, brain dead flat earth fear mongers like Cypress will ignore the facts. Instead he will champion the Fox's report of the Fox's activities in the hen house and proclaim that 'The FOX IS INNOCENT!!!'

[Aoxomoxoa]

1) No statistically significant warming in the past 15 years - phil jones

2) No evidence to support that we are warmer today than during the medieval period. The data that does exist supports the contrary... though not enough data for the globe to be conclusive.

3) Again... the data being 'lost' or deleted because it was 'too hard to store' is a sign of bad science.

4) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore all of the data and instead cling to his 'u guyz should stop reading right wing blogs' line of bullshit.

5) Again.... when the 'reports' as to what occurred are done by the very organizations/groups that have a vested interest in their global warming fear mongering, I would say only a completely brain dead moron would believe the very people who lied to us in the first place.

6) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore the benefit these governments, government agencies and groups funded by the BILLIONS of dollars have by being the global warming fear mongering that they are. The governments gain more control over lemmings like Cypress, the Government agencies get more control and the groups like East Anglia get billions to continue the myth of AGW.

7) Again, brain dead flat earth fear mongers like Cypress will ignore the facts. Instead he will champion the Fox's report of the Fox's activities in the hen house and proclaim that 'The FOX IS INNOCENT!!!'

Don't forget that Goldman Sachs have a huge vested interest in all the carbon credits.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/ne...-scam-9501.htm

[tinfoil]

It's hilarious, after you post all those points, which are just the tip of the iceberg--albeit, a melting one LOL-- The warmer just keeps on chugging his koolaide.

The guy who headed the inquiry has a conflict of interest. It takes a seriously feeble mind to not understand the whitewashing.

That's our Cypress. True libtard. The guy buys every strawman the liberals sell. From the tea party myth of the raging whitey, to global warming deniers are all exxon funded shills, you name it, that asshole Cypress believes it. LOL what a dumb fuck

[Superfreak]

amazing how that brain dead dolt always seems to disappear right after someone shows him why he is wrong. yet he will likely start up yet another thread in a few weeks when the third fox releases its study on its own actions in the hen house.