Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1 'Climategate' report: the main points 
    Senior Member The Night Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    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, 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
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #2  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Queen Creek, AZ
    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. (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)

    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.
    Last edited by malloc; 07-07-2010 at 05:59 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
    Reply With Quote  

  3. #3  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    NJ, Exit Only
    Quote Originally Posted by The Night Owl View Post
    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.
    If you can read this thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English thank a soldier​.
    Reply With Quote  

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    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?
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #5  
    Climategate proved Jones and his ilk lied.

    Full stop.
    Reply With Quote  

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