PDA

View Full Version : 'Climategate' report: the main points



The Night Owl
07-07-2010, 04:44 PM
At the risk of provoking more babyish denier rage, I present the verdict on Climategate...


'Climategate' report: the main points
From manipulating data to censoring articles, 150-page report clears scientists of main allegations against them

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 July 2010 19.27 BST

Was it the greatest scandal in modern science or a storm in a teacup whipped up by climate sceptics and an uncritical media? The report from a panel of experts led by Sir Muir Russell into the "climategate" affair that saw thousands of personal emails from global warming scientists released on to the internet was eagerly awaited by all sides.

The report, which effectively cleared the scientists of the most serious charges – including deliberately fudging climate change results, is unlikely to be the final word on the matter, as the University of East Anglia and the beleaguered director of its Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones, would have hoped.

As the panel noted: "Emails are rarely definitive evidence of what actually occurred." Those who argue that climate change is a conspiracy of crooked scientists will find little problem in labelling the latest vindication a whitewash. But the panel's report, which runs to some 150 pages, covers in detail the main allegations made against the scientists.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists-main-points

Damn! You deniers just can't catch a break lately.

malloc
07-07-2010, 04:56 PM
Gullibility to the point of religious hysteria isn't a virtue. Are you aware that Sir Muir Russel is coming under fire already for these findings?



Does the shamelessness of the noisome Michael Mann and his Hockey Team know no bounds?

(No. Ed)

Not content with the two whitewash inquiries into Climategate so far, Mann and his Hockey Team (though mainly Mann, probably – the writing is very much in his half-wheedling, half-blustering style) have written to the chairman of the third and final inquiry Sir Muir Russell to “express some serious concerns” and to “provide specific suggestions” as to what his conclusions might be.

Here is a summary of what they urge in the letter, which you can read in full at Bishop Hill (http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Letter_to_Sir_Muir_Russell_Climate%20Scientists_26 %20May.pdf). (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)

LINK (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100045575/sneaky-bullying-self-pitying-climategate-scientists-write-to-sir-muir-russell-inquiry-begging-make-it-a-whitewash-hat-trick/)


Did you conveniently overlook the criticism? Did you conveniently overlook the apparent collusion between Russell and Mann's hockey team? It seems to me the climate change fanatics can't catch the break. After all, these pseudo-scientists can't even seem to pull off a simple cover up, yet they are supposed to be smarter than everyone else. This whole fiasco of letting climate change fanatics investigate other fanatics is like letting the government investigate itself. There was never any doubt as to what the outcome would be, and there was never any doubt that nobody would believe the whitewash.

If you want to hate humans, or hate yourself for destroying Gaia or whatever, that ghey avatar is doing a fine job of expressing your self loathing.

Articulate_Ape
07-07-2010, 04:59 PM
At the risk of provoking more babyish denier rage, I present the verdict on Climategate...


I never doubted for a moment what the verdict of a panel appointed by the University of East Anglia (the institution that CRU belongs to) would be. Like in the Mann case, the lack of objectivity and conflict of interest is glaring to anyone with even a shred of good sense.

Would you be satisfied if BP's board of directors appointed a review panel made up of the company's top brass and largest shareholders to determine if there was any wrong-doing on BP's part related to the gulf oil disaster and whether BP should pay high financial penalties? I highly doubt you would be, and yet that is essentially what you are applauding in the case of the CRU review.

Lager
07-07-2010, 05:26 PM
babyish denier rage? :rolleyes:

Let me ask you; are you going to be pleased if some catastrophic event happens because of climate change, simply because you can scold "deniers" with "I told you so"?

Or, if the predictions of climate change prove in the future to be significantly overblown, will you be relieved that no harm was done, or disappointed that the predictions were in error?

Sonnabend
07-08-2010, 05:18 AM
Climategate proved Jones and his ilk lied.

Full stop.