APP - British Inquiry: Climate data NOT manipulated

[Cypress]

Inquiry: Climate data NOT manipulated

British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency

LONDON - The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had 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 — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report released Wednesday, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."


The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit.

The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals.

One that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.

"Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded. Similarly, Jones intended "trick" to mean a neat way of handling evidence, rather than anything underhanded, the inquiry found.

The e-mails' publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of manmade climate change calling the e-mails' publication "Climategate" and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated — or even made up altogether.

The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to "the serious implications for U.K. science.....

hil Willis, the committee's chairman, said of the e-mails that "there's no denying that some of them were pretty appalling."

But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond "a blunt refusal to share data," adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.

Deeper inquiries promised
Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony — did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending and which were instigated by the University of East Anglia.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment

Regression Analysis of People who were duped into supporting the Iraq War, and those who were duped into believing "Climate Gate":

EDIT:

P.S., and I'm willing to make a friendly wager with any climate denialist on this board, that the two other pending investigations are going to find substantially the same thing: that the science is sound, there is no evidence of data manipulation.......and that there there is no global or university conspiracy to cook the books or manipulate the data.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Regression Analysis of People who were duped into supporting the Iraq War, and those who were duped into believing "Climate Gate":

EDIT:

P.S., and I'm willing to make a friendly wager with any climate denialist on this board, that the two other pending investigations are going to find substantially the same thing: that the science is sound, there is no evidence of data manipulation.......and that there there is no global or university conspiracy to cook the books or manipulate the data.

I've got some Ocean front property, in Nebraska, that I would be willing to sell you.

 

[Cypress]

Translation:

I've got some Ocean front property, in Nebraska, that I would be willing to sell you.....I'm going to believe what I read on Drudge and some rightwing blogs NO MATTER what some professional inquiries report.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Translation:

LOL

And yet, you'll believe anything that ANYONE has to say is proof that global warming is fact.

So; are you saying that you don't want to buy that Ocean front property??

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

BREAKING NEWS..... FOX investigates break in at chicken coup.... finds he (oops, I mean the perpetrator) did nothing wrong.

Amazing how a government body that was touting the 'consensus' and leading the fear mongering charge of 'global catastrophe' finds that the 'researchers' whose data they used to support their insane positions 'wasn't manipulated'.

Cause if they 'found' that it was manipulated.... that would mean they were either duped (which doesn't make them look good) or they were complicit (which doesn't make them look good).

But to the flat earth denialists like Cypress... it is all good now... his masters told him so.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Lets truly recap once again for the idiots like Cypress...

Does anyone have the heart to tell poor little Cypress about the hi-jacking of science by the global warming fear mongers? Should we point out yet again how they misled the public with their fear mongering? Should we point out yet again how the power grab by the politicians hijacked the science behind the studies? How the suppression of opposing views, the demand that a 'consensus' had been reached and that the 'debate was over', how the data was unassailable.... only to find out....

1) No significant warming for 15 years (from the mouth of one of the leading fear mongers)

2) NO conclusion on whether the medieval warming period was warmer than now due to lack of data.

3) IPCC pushed propaganda and proclaimed it was 'science'... now we find one error after another.

Why? What could be the motivation that the flat earth global warming fear mongers have for doing so? Could it be the power the government agencies would then have over the corporate world and the citizens? Could it be the potential for BILLIONS more in funding that the 'scientists' would get? Nah... that couldn't be it.

Just ask Cypress.... he will STILL tell you it is a settled debate... he will still try to equate those who question the AGW theory with Holocaust denialists... because that makes them sound 'evilzzz'. He will now also try to pretend that only right wing blogs are reporting on the errors or quoting Jones. He will still pretend that there is no doubt. He will still mock the idiots who proclaim that the current east coast snow storms are proof that AGW is wrong, while at the same time ignoring all the idiots that have used severe weather incidents as proof of AGW.

But yeah Cypress.... the liberal side has NEVER hijacked Science. Just keep posting how the government (who again wants to exert more control over the populace) agencies are still 'behind' AGW. Keep pretending that it is just right wing tabloids covering this.... ignore the NY Times and BBC.... because that is what a good little leg humping lemming does.

 

[Topspin]

Love the " hide the define in temperatures" really means erronious data. SNL couldn't produce better comedy. Thanks

 

[Cypress]

Love the " hide the define in temperatures" really means erronious data. SNL couldn't produce better comedy. Thanks

Stick to accounting and stocks, bro'!

This Dr. Jones dude would have to be an idiot to try to "hide" something that he, and others, have alreadly routinely written about, published about, and talked about in public for years; i.e., the erroneous tree ring data.

Trying to "hide" something that is already in the public domain, and is well known in the science community, would be something only a fucking retard would do.

The most reasonable and plausible explanation is exactly what the inquiry reported:

Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/3[/quote[87i.pdf

Topspin, I'll totally defer to you on stock tips and cajun food. But try not to make me laugh again when you post on a science thread.


(j/ teasing)



The next two inquires will be out, and they will come to substantially the same conclusions this inquiry did. I'll make sure to post them when they do. Not that it will matter to teabaggers. They'll still believe pajamasmedia/blogspot.com. Which is pathetic, retarded...and yet still, oddly hilarious!

 

[tinfoil]

BREAKING NEWS..... FOX investigates break in at chicken coup.... finds he (oops, I mean the perpetrator) did nothing wrong.

Amazing how a government body that was touting the 'consensus' and leading the fear mongering charge of 'global catastrophe' finds that the 'researchers' whose data they used to support their insane positions 'wasn't manipulated'.

Cause if they 'found' that it was manipulated.... that would mean they were either duped (which doesn't make them look good) or they were complicit (which doesn't make them look good).

But to the flat earth denialists like Cypress... it is all good now... his masters told him so.

NO SHIT! My god cypress is a total fucking tool!

how do you look at their report without laughing? LOL I'll say it again. what a total fucking tool

 

[tinfoil]

hey crypiss, do you understand that they used real temps after 1960 because tree ring proxy data, on which the unprecedented warming claim was based, does not show the trend expected.

You fucking idiot

 

[Cypress]

Hey tinfoil dude,
Remember those hacked emails that "proved" the science of human-caused climate change was one great big liberal hoax?? A global conspiracy of Marxist-Lenninist scientists?

Who could have guessed it was a fake, made-up pseudo scandal, perpetrated and promoted by dupes who believe what they read on Drudge and rightwing blogs? The very same idiots who were also so easily duped into supporting the Iraq Fiasco.

No one could have predicted!

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Eighth Report of Session 2009–10

Summary....

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf

 

[tinfoil]

crypiss, go find another instance where real temps were mated to proxy temps and I'll believe Jones and Mann followed standard scientific procedures. If you can't find another study that uses a similar technique, then you're full of shit!

 

[Cypress]

crypiss, go find another instance where real temps were mated to proxy temps and I'll believe Jones and Mann followed standard scientific procedures. If you can't find another study that uses a similar technique, then you're full of shit!

what's your science PhD in, again?

Oh, that's right. You don't have one. You do light fixtures, or something.

I told you before man, when I have a choice of either believing a college drop out with zero science qualifications, or the U.S. Academy of Sciences, NASA and a professional report from House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, then my choice is clear. Sorry, man!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

1) No significant warming for 15 years (from the mouth of one of the leading fear mongers)

One of the biggest outright lies of science denying conspiracy theorists.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed.





Sounds like he's with you on this one, SF. Nice way to twist someones words. He was saying that the data was noisy in the short term. He wasn't saying global climate change had stopped.

 

[tinfoil]

what's your science PhD in, again?

Oh, that's right. You don't have one. You do light fixtures, or something.

I told you before man, when I have a choice of either believing a college drop out with zero science qualifications, or the U.S. Academy of Sciences, NASA and a professional report from House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, then my choice is clear. Sorry, man!

what an ass!. the fraud is that the real temps were mated (past 1960) onto proxy derived temps(with error margins greater than the entire projected alarmist temp change )

Do you dispute this?
You idiot!

Go buy some carbon credits, you religious nutter

 

[tinfoil]

PROVEN!! crypiss can't talk science! just look at his response. He goes ad hom on me because he can't disprove the fraudulent proxy temp bullshit that Jones and Mann along with the IPCC passed off as facts. It's a lie and it's fraudulent and no matter how many times Crypiss calls me names or questions my scientific knowledge, it doesn't change the fraud.

Fuck you ,warmers!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

2) NO conclusion on whether the medieval warming period was warmer than now due to lack of data.

Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.

Figure 3: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NOAA).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

3) IPCC pushed propaganda and proclaimed it was 'science'... now we find one error after another.

I know you are completely and totally ignorant of science, but this kind of creationists-type argument is really below you. Science sometimes makes mistakes. Unlike with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists, creationists and other groups, science admits these errors, and revises its prediction. That's how things work. This is just as ridiculous as the creationists who say that clearly the entire evolutionary theory is flawed every time we discover new evidence and revise our old theory.

Besides, practically the only thing the IPCC got wrong was the Himalayan glaciers. Apparently one error = one error after another.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Here is an excellent video on Vimeo called Catastrophe Denied.

[ame="http://vimeo.com/7811562"]Catastrophe Denied: A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory (live version) on Vimeo[/ame]

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I know you are completely and totally ignorant of science, but this kind of creationists-type argument is really below you. Science sometimes makes mistakes. Unlike with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists, creationists and other groups, science admits these errors, and revises its prediction. That's how things work. This is just as ridiculous as the creationists who say that clearly the entire evolutionary theory is flawed every time we discover new evidence and revise our old theory.

Besides, practically the only thing the IPCC got wrong was the Himalayan glaciers. Apparently one error = one error after another.

LMAO.... this wasn't an error based on a miscalculation. This was an error that was a direct result of complete sloppiness on their part (and that is being kind to them).

Also, if you believe it was just the Himalayan portion in which they erred then you are either not paying attention or deliberately ignoring the other 'errors' they made.