Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: "Climate Gate": The Lion that Squeaked Like a Mouse

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default "Climate Gate": The Lion that Squeaked Like a Mouse

    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

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    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.
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,669
    Thanks
    6,593
    Thanked 12,128 Times in 9,658 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    "hide the decline" indicates deception. This article is just trying to rewrite what words mean. How sad.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,505
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    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....
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    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.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,669
    Thanks
    6,593
    Thanked 12,128 Times in 9,658 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    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.

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic State
    Posts
    26,917
    Thanks
    3,256
    Thanked 5,373 Times in 4,319 Posts
    Groans
    1,505
    Groaned 2,440 Times in 2,029 Posts

    Default

    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.
    Put blame where it belongs
    ATF decided it could not regulate bump stocks during the Obama administration.
    It that time," the NRA wrote in a statement. "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semiautomatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."
    The ATF and Obama admin. ignored the NRA recommendations.


  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    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

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    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?

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,505
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    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".
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,783
    Thanks
    35,467
    Thanked 50,284 Times in 27,093 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    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.

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,470
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 125 Times in 84 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 33 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    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.

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoil View Post
    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.o...c/causes01.jsp

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,505
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    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.
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    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)
    Quote from Cypress:
    "Scientists don't use "averages". Maybe armchair supertools on message boards ascribe some meaning to "averages" between two random data points. And maybe clueless amatuers "draw a straight line" through two random end data points to define a "trend". Experts don't.

    They use mean annual and five year means in trend analysis. Don't tell me I have to explain the difference to you. "

Similar Threads

  1. Now, it's "Climate Change!"
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2009, 08:06 PM
  2. Psychaitrists identify "Climate Change Delusion" disorder
    By Little-Acorn in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-10-2008, 04:27 AM
  3. Bill Clinton: Purdum a "Sleazy" "Slimy" "Scumbag"
    By blackascoal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-03-2008, 07:56 AM
  4. "Sweetie-Gate"...
    By Damocles in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 06:58 AM
  5. Is it "global warming" now--or is it "climate change"?
    By theMAJORITY in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 07:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •