Since no one else seems to want to post it
-
UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists [^] There's your answer about what happened with the UK inquiry. This came from the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee and is the first of 3 inquiries to have been released. The Committee said, "they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming" So, there you go.
-
You're a bit late. I posted that story over 12 hours ago. See below my reply to Fat_Boy's posting.
alright...didn't see your post.
-
UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists [^] There's your answer about what happened with the UK inquiry. This came from the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee and is the first of 3 inquiries to have been released. The Committee said, "they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming" So, there you go.
My opinion has been: Mr. Jones was inept in his version control of data and code. This was not important until matters of great pith and moment hung upon his findings. Compliance with requests for data and code would reveal the shambles, so his initial reaction was to refuse. Reports of the refusal in numerous blogs triggered an avalanche of (largely frivolous, I suspect) requests. The emails merely show that he had succumbed to the culture of politicized science. The above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW. Perhaps had Mr. Jones called upon the UEA's School of Computing Sciences and School of Economics, he could have obtained professional help with the management of Information Systems and with practical Statistical Analysis.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists [^] There's your answer about what happened with the UK inquiry. This came from the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee and is the first of 3 inquiries to have been released. The Committee said, "they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming" So, there you go.
So when Phil Jones wrote the following to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” that was not a declaration of intent, according to the STC investigation. The committee essentially believes it is A-OK for the CRU scientists to routinely refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The committee sees no problem with the fact that those same scientists have the power to do just that. It is backwards and upside down to constantly refer to a “scientific consensus” in order to back up claims of human induced warming and then to essentially state that it doesn’t matter whether or not the scientists at the head of that same consensus have operated within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
So when Phil Jones wrote the following to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” that was not a declaration of intent, according to the STC investigation. The committee essentially believes it is A-OK for the CRU scientists to routinely refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The committee sees no problem with the fact that those same scientists have the power to do just that. It is backwards and upside down to constantly refer to a “scientific consensus” in order to back up claims of human induced warming and then to essentially state that it doesn’t matter whether or not the scientists at the head of that same consensus have operated within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Whenever you manage a post with more than 5 words between spelling errors I wonder who wrote it. Why dont you just paste the link?[^]
Just to piss you off.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Just to piss you off.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Just to piss you off.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
hahahaha, so he can´t even have an opinion and just is a copy & paste kind of a guy?? LMAO and he says that the government wants to control our thoughts, don't worry CSS, you're right, the government will never control yours, because you don't have any, so consider yourself a free person!!! :laugh:
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
hahahaha, so he can´t even have an opinion and just is a copy & paste kind of a guy?? LMAO and he says that the government wants to control our thoughts, don't worry CSS, you're right, the government will never control yours, because you don't have any, so consider yourself a free person!!! :laugh:
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
You are a real ignorant shit throwing monkey.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
You are a real ignorant shit throwing monkey.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are a real ignorant sh*t throwing monkey.
this is a hard one, erm, Ron Paul??? can´t be yours, you're not original nor you have any thoughts of your own...
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
So when Phil Jones wrote the following to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” that was not a declaration of intent, according to the STC investigation. The committee essentially believes it is A-OK for the CRU scientists to routinely refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The committee sees no problem with the fact that those same scientists have the power to do just that. It is backwards and upside down to constantly refer to a “scientific consensus” in order to back up claims of human induced warming and then to essentially state that it doesn’t matter whether or not the scientists at the head of that same consensus have operated within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Another exercise in Cut'n'Paste, Captain SeeVee? No credits to Steve Watson, the Prison Planet hack? BTW, just to ask again, do you support the following statements? * Back to Nature - insane * Carbon Offsetting - joke * Ethical Consumption - scam * Green Lifestyle - ostentatious grand gesture * Nuclear Power - essential * Recycling - waste of time and energy * Renewable Energy Subsidies - No! Rely on market forces * Technology - more needed, not less * Wind Power - waste of time
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
So when Phil Jones wrote the following to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” that was not a declaration of intent, according to the STC investigation. The committee essentially believes it is A-OK for the CRU scientists to routinely refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The committee sees no problem with the fact that those same scientists have the power to do just that. It is backwards and upside down to constantly refer to a “scientific consensus” in order to back up claims of human induced warming and then to essentially state that it doesn’t matter whether or not the scientists at the head of that same consensus have operated within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
But they didn't, because they couldn't.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
to routinely refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The committee sees no problem with the fact that those same scientists have the power to do just that.
But they don't have that power, they just cannot keep it out of the public domain.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
it doesn’t matter whether or not the scientists at the head of that same consensus have operated within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.
No, it doesn't, because, much as they might wish to, they do not have the power to stonewall theories, data and viewpoints. Were you to read sites that are interested in the science of climate change rather than those of hysterical conspiracy theorists, you would know this. And, yes, I consider the inquiry to be a whitewash of CRU. None of those most affected by the actions of CRU were called to give evidence, and their written submissions appear to have been ignored. However, the inquiry did confirm that the withholding of data and methods is unscientific (even if it is down to your having no idea which dataset or code you used in your paper, and whether it is still extant).
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists [^] There's your answer about what happened with the UK inquiry. This came from the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee and is the first of 3 inquiries to have been released. The Committee said, "they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming" So, there you go.
OK, so there ARE two kinds of data, the original, and the non original. (The original has ben 'lost' of course). And you expect us to believe the data hadnt ben modified? If it hadnt been there would only be the original data.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
My opinion has been: Mr. Jones was inept in his version control of data and code. This was not important until matters of great pith and moment hung upon his findings. Compliance with requests for data and code would reveal the shambles, so his initial reaction was to refuse. Reports of the refusal in numerous blogs triggered an avalanche of (largely frivolous, I suspect) requests. The emails merely show that he had succumbed to the culture of politicized science. The above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW. Perhaps had Mr. Jones called upon the UEA's School of Computing Sciences and School of Economics, he could have obtained professional help with the management of Information Systems and with practical Statistical Analysis.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
e above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW.
Oh really? Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured. In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 cant have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in th etemperature record.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
e above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW.
Oh really? Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured. In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 cant have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in th etemperature record.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured.
There are other sources. Mr. Jones' ineptitude has no impact on the case for (or against) AGW.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 can't have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in the temperature record.
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
e above in no way impacts on the case for (or against) AGW.
Oh really? Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured. In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 cant have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in th etemperature record.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Right, because one man's opinion is more important than years of research and numerous scientific studies. In other news, Al Gore has decreed that the Earth is going to burn up, Alex Jones has decreed that we're all political slaves, and Chicken Little says the sky is falling. If someone says it, it must be true! Seriously, you're basing your argument on a man whose team has been discredited, re-credited, discredited, re-credited, discredited-- How many times has it been so far? Whenever his/their evidence supports your cause, you point to it, and whenever it points the other way, you say it's garbage. Not to mention the repeated assumption that the CRU study is the only one out there, and that if their study is discredited, the entire theory has been proven wrong. You're free to argue any point of view you want here, but come on... A little consistency and common sense?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Right, because one man's opinion is more important than years of research and numerous scientific studies. In other news, Al Gore has decreed that the Earth is going to burn up, Alex Jones has decreed that we're all political slaves, and Chicken Little says the sky is falling. If someone says it, it must be true! Seriously, you're basing your argument on a man whose team has been discredited, re-credited, discredited, re-credited, discredited-- How many times has it been so far? Whenever his/their evidence supports your cause, you point to it, and whenever it points the other way, you say it's garbage. Not to mention the repeated assumption that the CRU study is the only one out there, and that if their study is discredited, the entire theory has been proven wrong. You're free to argue any point of view you want here, but come on... A little consistency and common sense?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
A little consistency
He has that. "If I believe it, the evidence I will point to will support me and I will ignore all other evidence." He's been very consistent. If the data over 30 years says warming, but 15 years says none, he uses 15 years. Statistics are fun, you ignore the right ones and you can support anything.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Without the original data there is no way to say WHAT warming has occured.
There are other sources. Mr. Jones' ineptitude has no impact on the case for (or against) AGW.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact Jones himself later stated the latest warming period is no different to the previous three, when CO2 can't have been a part so the man himself has stated that AGW is not evident in the temperature record.
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
There are other sources
Being GISS and NCDC, both of whose teams were in constant communicaiton with Jones over the decades sharing 'tricks' and so on thus making their findings equally suspect. As for THEIR original data it is at least available. And if you look at it the case for AGW actually collapses since you can see the obvious manipulation. In fact the raw station data sets (and John Daleys site is a good source) actualy show an inconsistent pattern of somw warming, some cooling.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You must take that up with someone who has studied climate science.
Well nows your chance. If you make statements like 'the recent CRU emails have no impact on the validity of AGW theory' then you had better step up and defend it with aome solid facts.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Right, because one man's opinion is more important than years of research and numerous scientific studies. In other news, Al Gore has decreed that the Earth is going to burn up, Alex Jones has decreed that we're all political slaves, and Chicken Little says the sky is falling. If someone says it, it must be true! Seriously, you're basing your argument on a man whose team has been discredited, re-credited, discredited, re-credited, discredited-- How many times has it been so far? Whenever his/their evidence supports your cause, you point to it, and whenever it points the other way, you say it's garbage. Not to mention the repeated assumption that the CRU study is the only one out there, and that if their study is discredited, the entire theory has been proven wrong. You're free to argue any point of view you want here, but come on... A little consistency and common sense?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Do you realise what an about face this was for Jones, to say the things he did in the Mail interview? For years he has worked as the OFFICIAL provder of data to the IPCC. The WORLDS EXPERT BODY on GW. He is probably one of the singly most important people in this field. For him to say, after being suspended pendig the enquiry, that: 1) The recent warming is stastically indifferent from the preceding three. (In temrs of rate and magnitude) 2) There has been no statistical warming since 1995. 3) The scientific debate is open. Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics. All sceptics want is cool headed debate and a better understanding of the science. What they dont want is endless fear stories and hysterical ranting directed against them. Which is too often the case. Jones has effectively given them this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
you say it's garbage
THats a lie. Prove it if you can, if not retract.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Do you realise what an about face this was for Jones, to say the things he did in the Mail interview? For years he has worked as the OFFICIAL provder of data to the IPCC. The WORLDS EXPERT BODY on GW. He is probably one of the singly most important people in this field. For him to say, after being suspended pendig the enquiry, that: 1) The recent warming is stastically indifferent from the preceding three. (In temrs of rate and magnitude) 2) There has been no statistical warming since 1995. 3) The scientific debate is open. Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics. All sceptics want is cool headed debate and a better understanding of the science. What they dont want is endless fear stories and hysterical ranting directed against them. Which is too often the case. Jones has effectively given them this.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
you say it's garbage
THats a lie. Prove it if you can, if not retract.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Is a remarkable set of statements since it puts his position pretty much in line with many of the sceptics.
It's remarkable because he agrees with you? Do you not see the inconsistency here? The man doesn't suddenly get smarter, or his opinion more significant, just because he agrees with you now.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)