#1 'Climategate' report: the main points07-07-2010, 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.
Damn! You deniers just can't catch a break lately.Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
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?
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. (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)
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.
Last edited by malloc; 07-07-2010 at 04:59 PM."In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense
07-07-2010, 04:59 PM
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."Our president delivered his State of the Union message to Congress. That is one of the things his contract calls for -- to tell congress the condition of the country. This message, as I say, is to Congress. The rest of the people know the condition of the country, for they live in it, but Congress has no idea what is going on in America, so the president has to tell 'em." ~ Will Rogers
07-07-2010, 05:26 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
- The West
babyish denier rage?
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?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|