PDA

View Full Version : "Climate Gate": The Lion that Squeaked Like a Mouse



Cypress
04-08-2010, 08:45 PM
Climategate: The lion that squeaked


Lord Monckton announced that it proved beyond doubt "the abject corruption of climate science".

"The reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished", thundered Lord Lawson and in the United States Senator James Inhofe went so far as to recommend that all those involved should be chased down for criminal prosecution.

Our own Lord of Blog Andrew Bolt declared it "a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science", an outrage in which leading scientists were guilty of "conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more".

Across the globe, denialists were cock-a-hoop.

At last, the leaking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had vindicated everything they believed, even the conspiracy theories about which they were a little embarrassed.

Except that the leaked emails that sent the denial industry into a heart-stopping frenzy have turned out to be the mouse that squeaked. That roar we heard was generated in the denialist echo chamber.

Today the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons brought down its report into "Climategate". What did it find?

1. There was nothing untoward behind the "trick" used to "hide the decline" in the temperature record. The phrases were colloquial terms without any sinister implications. The Committee found that the "evidence patently fails to support" the claim that these words reveal a conspiracy to hide evidence that does not fit with global warming, and that CRU Director Professor Phil Jones has "no case to answer".

2. The results and conclusions of CRU research have been independent verified by other methodologies and other sources of data. The Unit's analyses "have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified".

3. There is no evidence to suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.

4. While 95 per cent of the CRU data have been publicly available for years and some of the remainder is subject to confidentiality agreements with overseas organisations, the report did find that CRU scientists had refused to hand over their data to climate "sceptics" and the University may have breached the Freedom of Information Act.

Despite this [last] finding, the Committee wrote that it "can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work."

The University of East Anglia had submitted that in "July 2009 UEA received an unprecedented, and frankly administratively overwhelming, deluge of FOIA requests related to CRU", which helps to explain why the Committee noted a "culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".

The Committee blamed the failure to release data on the relevant officers at the University who should have stepped in to over-rule the scientists. "We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced", concluded the Committee, and recommended Jones be reinstated.

So, to summarize the findings of the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee....

no conspiracy,

no collusion,

no manipulation of data,

no corruption of the peer-review process,

no scandal;

just an understandable reluctance to hand over data to dishonest people with a history of misrepresenting it.


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2862717.htm

USFREEDOM911
04-08-2010, 08:47 PM
Climategate: The lion that squeaked


Lord Monckton announced that it proved beyond doubt "the abject corruption of climate science".

"The reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished", thundered Lord Lawson and in the United States Senator James Inhofe went so far as to recommend that all those involved should be chased down for criminal prosecution.

Our own Lord of Blog Andrew Bolt declared it "a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science", an outrage in which leading scientists were guilty of "conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more".

Across the globe, denialists were cock-a-hoop.

At last, the leaking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had vindicated everything they believed, even the conspiracy theories about which they were a little embarrassed.

Except that the leaked emails that sent the denial industry into a heart-stopping frenzy have turned out to be the mouse that squeaked. That roar we heard was generated in the denialist echo chamber.

Today the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons brought down its report into "Climategate". What did it find?

1. There was nothing untoward behind the "trick" used to "hide the decline" in the temperature record. The phrases were colloquial terms without any sinister implications. The Committee found that the "evidence patently fails to support" the claim that these words reveal a conspiracy to hide evidence that does not fit with global warming, and that CRU Director Professor Phil Jones has "no case to answer".

2. The results and conclusions of CRU research have been independent verified by other methodologies and other sources of data. The Unit's analyses "have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified".

3. There is no evidence to suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process.

4. While 95 per cent of the CRU data have been publicly available for years and some of the remainder is subject to confidentiality agreements with overseas organisations, the report did find that CRU scientists had refused to hand over their data to climate "sceptics" and the University may have breached the Freedom of Information Act.

Despite this [last] finding, the Committee wrote that it "can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work."

The University of East Anglia had submitted that in "July 2009 UEA received an unprecedented, and frankly administratively overwhelming, deluge of FOIA requests related to CRU", which helps to explain why the Committee noted a "culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".

The Committee blamed the failure to release data on the relevant officers at the University who should have stepped in to over-rule the scientists. "We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced", concluded the Committee, and recommended Jones be reinstated.

So, to summarize the findings of the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee....

no conspiracy,

no collusion,

no manipulation of data,

no corruption of the peer-review process,

no scandal;

just an understandable reluctance to hand over data to dishonest people with a history of misrepresenting it.


http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2862717.htm


Humans did not cause global warming and the scientist lied. :good4u:

Hermes Thoth
04-09-2010, 08:28 AM
"hide the decline" indicates deception. This article is just trying to rewrite what words mean. How sad.

Damocles
04-09-2010, 08:37 AM
This is like students who check their own papers saying they get an "A+" all the time. I don't get why people who supposedly have inquisitive minds would continue to fawn all over these people as if they were the second coming. Even the dude they just cleared flat out said he cannot reproduce his own data he's used, his own fricking data. Just unreproducable, but "hey" it was "peer reviewed"...

If it was "peer reviewed" they acted like the CBO and just "assumed" that the data was correct, because they too can't reproduce the data....

evince
04-09-2010, 08:51 AM
How the Fuck is it you people cant accept science?

The science was fine.

Just like Okeefe bullshit this was a concocted to discredit reality and give fuel to a political position.

quit ALLOWING yourselves to be used.

Hermes Thoth
04-09-2010, 09:02 AM
How the Fuck is it you people cant accept science?

The science was fine.

Just like Okeefe bullshit this was a concocted to discredit reality and give fuel to a political position.

quit ALLOWING yourselves to be used.

You're dumber than shit. Scientific truths are not proclaimed from upon high by authority. That's religion.

They can't even produce their original dataset, and "hide the decline" is deceptive.

You will beleive anything that buttresses your idiot notions.

NOVA
04-09-2010, 06:57 PM
The Committee found that the "evidence patently fails to support" the claim that these words reveal a conspiracy to hide evidence that does not fit with global warming, and that CRU Director Professor Phil Jones has "no case to answer".

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I get it...its the old "if you don't believe me, just ask me", defense....

my kids used to try that bullshit on me when they were teenagers...
It didn't work then and it ain't gonna work now.

tinfoil
04-09-2010, 08:20 PM
How the Fuck is it you people cant accept science?

The science was fine.

Just like Okeefe bullshit this was a concocted to discredit reality and give fuel to a political position.

quit ALLOWING yourselves to be used.

Wow, you're pathetic. You were all over deception when it involves the war machine. Hell, you woke me up to global scammers and their methods of selling their agendas. How is it you ignore when the number of global climate stations have fallen in number from over 6000 stations in the 50's and 60's to less than 1600 right now, and on top of this drastic reduction in quantity of sample size, the trend of nearly all the stations removed was either neutral or tending opposite the CO correlation expectations!!


I feel sorry that you can't bring yourself to recognize your reliance authority. Do you honestly believe your party--the leaders who called insurance companies "evil mongers" and then turned around and mandated you buy their product-- DO you honestly believ they act in your interest? This global warming stuff is the backdrop for a host of taxes. I know you support taxation, so I guess you should just quit lying. You don't know shit anbout the science of global warming. You haven't taken even a few hours to fact check any of what you believe, and you don't care either.

This is why you make this country suck

Cypress
04-11-2010, 07:25 PM
This is like students who check their own papers saying they get an "A+" all the time. I don't get why people who supposedly have inquisitive minds would continue to fawn all over these people as if they were the second coming. Even the dude they just cleared flat out said he cannot reproduce his own data he's used, his own fricking data. Just unreproducable, but "hey" it was "peer reviewed"...

If it was "peer reviewed" they acted like the CBO and just "assumed" that the data was correct, because they too can't reproduce the data....



Right Damo. All of the professional investigations into "climate gate" are all part of a grander global conspiracy, and they're all vested in lying about the science. The british house of commons is lying. The Penn State academic review board is lying. The US National Academy of Sciences in either lying, or are too incompetent to perceive this vast liberal science climate conspiracy that you, tinfoil and dixie are somehow able to penetrate.

You've gone off the deep end man, this is whack-a-loon stuff, and your argument is beyond ridiculous. It's not even worthy of serious consideration.

I still wonder why you accepted, without question or hesitation, an academic review board's findings on ward churchill. But, when academic review boards, or british house of commons provide reports are published that you don't agree with, suddenly its all part of the big liberal conspiracy.

Climate gate was a made up, phony scandal, bro. And the other pending investigations are going to conclude sustantially the same thing. Are you planning on just saying all the investigations are lying, and that you, Tinfoil, bravo, and Dixie have cracked the case?

Damocles
04-11-2010, 07:28 PM
Right Damo. All of the professional investigations into "climate gate" are all part of a grander global conspiracy, and they're all vested in lying about the science. The british house of commons is lying. The Penn State academic review board is lying. The US National Academy of Sciences in either lying, or are too incompetent to perceive this vast liberal science climate conspiracy that you, tinfoil and dixie are somehow able to penetrate.

You've gone off the deep end man, this is whack-a-loon stuff, and your argument is beyond ridiculous. It's not even worthy of serious consideration.

I still wonder why you accepted, without question or hesitation, an academic review board's findings on ward churchill. But, when academic review boards, or british house of commons provide reports are published that you don't agree with, suddenly its all part of the big liberal conspiracy.

Climate gate was a made up, phony scandal, bro. And the other pending investigations are going to conclude sustantially the same thing. Are you planning on just saying all the investigations are lying, and that you, Tinfoil, bravo, and Dixie have cracked the case?
Yes, this is like Big Pharma "investigating" itself. Would you trust the results? Seriously. I'm embarrassed for any scientist who pretends that any data set that is unreproduceable is also somehow "reviewed".

Cypress
04-11-2010, 07:36 PM
Yes, this is like Big Pharma "investigating" itself. Would you trust the results? Seriously. I'm embarrassed for any scientist who pretends that any data set that is unreproduceable is also somehow "reviewed".


Right got it. Your position is that every single investigation into "climate gate" are all lying, and the world's most qualified and expert scientific organizations - from the National Academy of Sciences to NASA - are either in on the conspiracy, or are unable to see the conspiracy theory that you and tinfoil have discovered.

Your bugnutz crazy man. This is beyond rational debate, you're emotionally invested in what you read on Drudge.

Good Luck
04-11-2010, 10:16 PM
Seems to me the only one posted so far that denies the corruption of the data used to proclaim AGW is the one written by those most interested in denying it. Governments world wide are slavering at the thought of the trillions of dollars they can tweeek out of the energy industry under the excuse of "preventing" AGW. There is the motive for finding nothing wrong with a study that refused to publish its data set, and now cannot reproduce it.

It is very simple: if a study cannot be reproduced, then it is suspect at the very least. Studies based on unreproducible data definitely do NOT belong under the heading of peer reviewed. They don't even belong under the heading of hypothesis. A hypothesis must be testable by REPRODUCIBLE tests. If the data set cannot be reproduced, the test of the hypothesis cannot be reproduced, and the hypothesis is declared null and void until REPRODUCIBLE tests are conducted. THAT is the basis of real science.

When the AGW crowd can reproduce the tests and data they used to proclaim their hypothesis, then it will be at least a genuine controversy as opposed to a politically driven bullshit session.

evince
04-11-2010, 10:32 PM
Wow, you're pathetic. You were all over deception when it involves the war machine. Hell, you woke me up to global scammers and their methods of selling their agendas. How is it you ignore when the number of global climate stations have fallen in number from over 6000 stations in the 50's and 60's to less than 1600 right now, and on top of this drastic reduction in quantity of sample size, the trend of nearly all the stations removed was either neutral or tending opposite the CO correlation expectations!!


I feel sorry that you can't bring yourself to recognize your reliance authority. Do you honestly believe your party--the leaders who called insurance companies "evil mongers" and then turned around and mandated you buy their product-- DO you honestly believ they act in your interest? This global warming stuff is the backdrop for a host of taxes. I know you support taxation, so I guess you should just quit lying. You don't know shit anbout the science of global warming. You haven't taken even a few hours to fact check any of what you believe, and you don't care either.

This is why you make this country suck

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes01.jsp

Damocles
04-12-2010, 07:38 AM
Right got it. Your position is that every single investigation into "climate gate" are all lying, and the world's most qualified and expert scientific organizations - from the National Academy of Sciences to NASA - are either in on the conspiracy, or are unable to see the conspiracy theory that you and tinfoil have discovered.

Your bugnutz crazy man. This is beyond rational debate, you're emotionally invested in what you read on Drudge.
No, my position is that when the dude says he cannot reproduce his data, he is telling the truth. It is also my contention that any data set that is irreproduceable is also irreviewable.

Cancel 2016.2
05-17-2010, 02:50 PM
Right got it. Your position is that every single investigation into "climate gate" are all lying, and the world's most qualified and expert scientific organizations - from the National Academy of Sciences to NASA - are either in on the conspiracy, or are unable to see the conspiracy theory that you and tinfoil have discovered.

Your bugnutz crazy man. This is beyond rational debate, you're emotionally invested in what you read on Drudge.

and here we go again... when Cypress is addressed with logic, he responds by pretending his opponent 'gets their information from drudge' (or whatever his right wing site of the day is)