http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm So either 1. Whitewash!!! 2. Oh, so there was no conspiracy. 3. There may not have been conspiracy but I still believe any errors fundamentally undermine the science.
Can't see where you going with that. It's not just my opinion, it's the report. So, do you have any cards or not?
They didn't actually interview anyone who claimed malfeasance was going on. That in of itself is amazing. They ignored the Institute of Physics report (the largest scientific organization in the world) that the practices were unacceptable. They ignored the British Government's own findings that a criminal breach of the Freedom of Information Act had occurred. And they ruled very quickly. Why? Because of the upcoming elections, and they cited that they didn't expect that this particular council would be called to address the issue once a new government was in place. Oh, and I particularly like the fact that the Chair of the panel had a financial interest in finding that there was no malfeasance. That's just peachy. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7071751.ece Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. :wink:
Oh, more fun: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2868937.htm I think that speaks for itself, doesn't it? LOL.
It's very easy if you stop to think about it. Dog wrecks the place and tries to cover it up by claiming tornado. Climategate guys commit all sorts of bad actions, cover it up it up, gets caught and then some report comes out and says that they did nothing wrong. Whether or not you believe in "Man made" climate change to say that the group of scientists who were "investigated" by this report did nothing wrong is itself wrong in just about every way.
Given that the FoIa thing has already been dealt with they were explicitly asked to leave it. And reviews don't tend to go looking for people making complaints - they make an assessment of the facts.
It doesn't say they did nothing wrong, it says there was no deliberate malpractice/conspiracy. It explicitly does say things that they could do better.
It is deliberate malpractice to mess with FOIA requests, knowingly falsify data, destroy...ooops I mean "lose" the original data sets, work on ruining critics, and in general being assholes.
Because the people who wrote the report support an agenda that is in favor of climate change and they are in a position to make millions of dollars off of climate change. It would be like some group writing a report that the tobacco industry didn't commit malpractice by covering up the nasty things they put in cigarettes while at the same time that group that wrote the report sells cigarettes and the accessories that go with it. Would you believe such a report?
Emmanuel became prominent for stating that global warming was effecting hurricanes, a view which has largely been refuted. To his credit he now thinks he was wrong. David Hand isn't a climatologist, he's a statistician. And the Oxburgh report came up with the same criticism that the NAS Wegman report did - that the fact that climatology doesn't use the latest statistical methods is a problem, and that in of itself means the math is questionable. Lisa Graumlich is a tree ring specialist - a paleoclimatologist whose work ties closely in with this cadre of climatologists, from Mann to Jones to Briffa. Significant malfeasance at the CRU would make her own work less authoritative. I'd say she had a professional conflict of interest. I don't know the rest, I'll take a look when I have the time. However, the big issue is financial conflict of interest, and that isn't something that has to be publicly disclosed by scientists. I will say that we do know the head of the comittee had a conflict of interest, and he's the one that rules on matters of procedure, and scope. The scope of this committee was ONLY whether or not the CRU acted unethically - but we already know they did because of the FOIA issue. And the scope of the committee specifically excluded the FOIA issue!
Captain X disagrees: what a pathetic backpedal It's a pathetic backpedal to tell them to do things better? What? Who's backpedalling? Do you even know what day it is?
You are, by claiming arguing semantics in the hope that it will distract people from what you actually said.
You know perfectly well. Obviously I can or I wouldn't be participating in a written discussion board.
"It doesn't say they did nothing wrong, it says there was no deliberate malpractice/conspiracy." It's like you just had to contradict Zombie to contradict his saying, "...to say that the group of scientists who were "investigated" by this report did nothing wrong is itself wrong in just about every way." Only to right after that say, "It explicitly does say things that they could do better." After leading a thread based entirely on a bullshit "finding" to being with. It's like you sort of realize it, but you won't quite let yourself admit it, and you try to have it both ways.
That's exactly what the report says, fucknuts! No deliberate malpractice but there are areas where they could improve. Click the fucking link!
Huw Davies: Prof. Davies was a founder member of the Swiss Academy of Science's Forum for Global and Climate Change (ProClim), a member of the Governmental Consultative Commission on Climate Change (OCCC) Kerry Emanuel has said: “What we have here,” says Kerry Emanuel, are “thousands of emails collectively showing scientists hard at work, trying to figure out the meaning of evidence that confronts them. Among a few messages, there are a few lines showing the human failings of a few scientists…” Emanuel believes that “scientifically, it means nothing,” because the controversy doesn’t challenge the overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic warming. He is far more concerned with the well-funded “public relations campaign” to drown out or distort the message of climate science, which he links to “interests where billions, even trillions are at stake…” This “machine … has been highly successful in branding climate scientists as a bunch of sandal-wearing, fruit-juice drinking leftist radicals engaged in a massive conspiracy to return us to agrarian society…” Lisa Graumlich: "There's a scenario widely discussed in the scientific community and not far fetched that truly does wake me up in a cold sweat at night," Graumlich says. "Based upon the acceleration of warming and possible feedback loops that speed it up more than we anticipate, there is a very real prospect that we could see a melting out of the Arctic Ice Sheet." Herbert Huppert (cached), professor of geophysics Current global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are approximately 27 Gigatonnes annually. The influence of this green-house gas on climate has raised concern. A means of reducing environmental damage is to store carbon dioxide somewhere until well past the end of the fossil fuel era. Professor Michael Kelly submission to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee: "I would argue now that there is enough climate data in that the emphasis should shift from yet more analysis to clear actions in mitigation and adaptation." Every single one of these people are Global Warmists. Not only that, they are involved in research and organizations that benefit from the status quo, because of their own works or financial interest. Some "independent" inquiry by the Royal Society.
