APP - British Inquiry: Climate data NOT manipulated

[Thorn]

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.

The Himalayan glaciers prediction had resulted from a gratuitous remark by someone who was not even a scientist. That study apparently was not done at all; the IPCC just heard of the remark and ran with it without questioning its source. Can't blame science for something that a member of the general public blathers about; however it should have been considered seriously and systematically by people who knew what they were doing.

 

[tinfoil]

People don't blame science, nor are sceptics critical of science-- when it's science!!

The IPCC is not science or scientists

 

[Cypress]

People don't blame science, nor are sceptics critical of science-- when it's science!!

The IPCC is not science or scientists

Hilarious.

You and numerous other two-time Bush voters invested months, and several dozen posts saying that the scientists were lying, misleading and manipulating climate data.

This probe just cleared the Dr. Jones, the dude you invested your self in claiming was lying. Dr. Mann was cleared as well. Pretty much every single claim you and others have made about a conspiracy of lying, liberal scientists has been dubunked.

I'll post the other pending investigations when they come out. They're going to show that the science is sound, that there was no global conspiracy of Marxist scientists, and show that you were foolish for believing Drudge and those rightwing blogs you visit.


On a serious note, there's a very good chance that history is going to judge you and the climate deniers very harshly.

 

[DamnYankee]

what's your science PhD in, again?

...

And yours?

 

[tinfoil]

LOL crypiss still thinks they cleared Jones of stuff. They didn't do anything of the sort.
why isn't he back at his job?

 

[tinfoil]

Hey crypiss, the facts still remains that the proxy data was replaced by real temps and that was not disclosed to the policy makers report. Look it up, asshole

 

[tinfoil]

It looks as if the tottering IPCC has just made its biggest mistake yet. Twenty-four hours after the announcement of an “independent” inquiry into certain aspects of its activities it is possible to make a considered assessment of its significance. By any reasoned analysis, it is not only a whitewash but one in which the paint is spread so thinly as to be transparent.

First, who appointed this review body? Those two iconic standard bearers of climate science objectivity, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC head (still!) Rajendra Pachauri. There is nothing like being judge in your own cause – it secures a less damaging verdict. Ban Ki-moon is the clown who, on a visit to the Arctic last September, despairingly proclaimed that “100 billion tons” of polar ice were melting each year, when the sea-ice around him had just extended itself by half a million square kilometres more than at the same time the previous year. Pachauri, among many other solecisms, is also the buffoon who denounced criticism of the IPCC’s absurd claims about melting Himalayan glaciers as “voodoo science”.

Then there is the review’s terms of reference. It has four remits: to analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN agencies; to review use of non-peer reviewed sources and data quality control; to assess how procedures handle “the full range of scientific views; and to review IPCC communications with the public and the media. So, most of its activity will relate to reorganisation of the IPCC’s propaganda operation and how it can be beefed up.

Nowhere are there proposals for it to revisit, in depth, the IPCC’s 3,000-page 2007 report and repudiate the vast range of inaccuracies and downright fabrications it contains. Instead, the review panel has to report by August so that its meaningless conclusions on a variety of irrelevant issues can be used to sanitise the IPCC’s next report, to be prepared at a meeting in October.

As for the personnel, the review will be conducted by the Inter-Academy Council and headed by its co-chairman Professor Robbert Dijkgraaf, who recently broadcast on Dutch radio a complacent statement about the “consensus” on climate science. The Inter-Academy Council is a representative body for a number of national academies of science, most of which are committed to the climate change cause.

So, a very obvious whitewash and presumably very satisfactory to the IPCC camp. Nevertheless, I repeat, it is probably the most serious mistake the AGW fanatics have so far made. This is because they have seriously underestimated the amount of trouble they are in. Any competent political spin doctor (and the AGW scam is pure politics, not science) would have told them that, as things stand in 2010, they had one last chance – and only one chance – to salvage their bogus crusade.

That was to allow a genuinely independent investigation, including highly qualified sceptics, to analyse the 2007 report and expose all its fallacies – which are already in the public domain in any case. They could then have apologised, sacked Pachauri (which they will probably do anyway) and prepared an equally mendacious but more sophisticated report, jettisoning the more extravagant scare-mongering for the time being, and so clawed back wavering support among the public.

Instead, they have opted for a very obvious whitewash, discredited from the day of its launch, that will provoke hilarity and increased scepticism when it reports. After that, there will be no road back. We should be grateful that the arrogance and over-confidence engendered by their longstanding immunity from challenge (but not any more) prompted the AGW fraudsters to create so inadequate a smokescreen.

This investigation is very good news for sceptics – not because it will denounce any significant flaws in the AGW imposture, but because it will not. AGW credulity is already a minority faith; but there is a further constituency of waverers, ready to break off like a melting iceberg from the main floe, whose final defection will mean the AGW movement is deprived of critical mass. This pathetic attempt at a cover-up could well be the catalyst for that decisive departure. Think about it and be glad.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/g...-review-is-the-agw-camps-biggest-mistake-yet/

 

[Taichiliberal]

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...ws-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.

This is going to be REAL interesting!

 

[DamnYankee]

...There is nothing like being judge in your own cause – it secures a less damaging verdict. ...

No reason to look any further. What ever happened to "peer review"?

 

[tinfoil]

check this out. when arctic ice melts, global warming is the culprit, but when ice recovers, it's a fluke!!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/01/north-sea-ice-arctic.html

This is climate science for you!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hilarious.

You and numerous other two-time Bush voters invested months, and several dozen posts saying that the scientists were lying, misleading and manipulating climate data.

This probe just cleared the Dr. Jones, the dude you invested your self in claiming was lying. Dr. Mann was cleared as well. Pretty much every single claim you and others have made about a conspiracy of lying, liberal scientists has been dubunked.

I'll post the other pending investigations when they come out. They're going to show that the science is sound, that there was no global conspiracy of Marxist scientists, and show that you were foolish for believing Drudge and those rightwing blogs you visit.


On a serious note, there's a very good chance that history is going to judge you and the climate deniers very harshly.

Obviously the flat earth fear mongering global warming idiots still have Cypress cheering them on.

He again ignores the fact that the fox was asked to evaluate the validity of the other foxes performance in the chicken house. The conclusion??? Why... the foxes did no wrong!!! what else?

I mean, seriously Gumby... did you really expect the proponents of the fear mongering to come to the conclusion that the people whose data they relied on to justify their fear mongering were wrong?

 

[Taichiliberal]

check this out. when arctic ice melts, global warming is the culprit, but when ice recovers, it's a fluke!!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/04/01/north-sea-ice-arctic.html

This is climate science for you!

Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Obviously the flat earth fear mongering global warming idiots still have Cypress cheering them on.

He again ignores the fact that the fox was asked to evaluate the validity of the other foxes performance in the chicken house. The conclusion??? Why... the foxes did no wrong!!! what else?

I mean, seriously Gumby... did you really expect the proponents of the fear mongering to come to the conclusion that the people whose data they relied on to justify their fear mongering were wrong?

Actually, it's you and folks of your mindset who are consistently in denial of facts......now what's fascinating is that you by hook, line and sinker the accusations brought upon by the edited hacking of some jokers of questionable reputation.

And like I asked the local crank...what's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?

 

[DamnYankee]

Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?

No one's "into" pollution Libbie. But you Lib-Tards want to regulate (and tax) CO2.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?

No one's "into" pollution Libbie. But you Lib-Tards want to regulate (and tax) CO2.

Oh, so you and your fellow parrots were for all the proposed pollution reforms?

Give me a fucking break......the foolish tax credits were a bad move, a compromise that Gore opted for in his advocations....and your corporate bretheren are NOT exactly the most forth coming and compliant people in this matter. They just want to be left to business as usual.

See genius, you and the other idiots on this subject are so knee jerk in your defense of the corporate system that you contradict yourselves eventually.....as I previously pointed out.

 

[Cypress]

Obviously the flat earth fear mongering global warming idiots still have Cypress cheering them on.

... did you really expect the proponents of the fear mongering to come to the conclusion that the people whose data they relied on to justify their fear mongering were wrong?

So your contention is that the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is in collusion with a vast global conspiracy of liberal climate scientists to manipulate data and defraud the public? Wow, interesting theory. Why hasn’t the U.S. National Academy of Sciences – the brightest scientific minds in the country – been able to penetrate this nefarious global conspiracy of liberal scientists that somehow, you, Southernman, Tinfoil and Meme have been able to deduce? That's really quite remarkable that you and Tinfoil have cracked the case, while NASA and the US Academy of Sciences have been totally punked and befuddled.

Bro', you got fooled into believing this climate gate nonsense because of some rightwing blogs and rightwing publications. Your fall-back position that the professionals charged with investigating are now lying isn’t worthy of serious consideration; i.e., you’ve invented a fake, faux-“scandal” that can’t be disproven because everyone’s lying about it….except for the rightwing blogs, of course.

Dr. Jones Cleared of Bogus and Laughable Rightwing Charges of Conspiracy and Data Manipulation

From a statement released by the House of Commons Science and Technology committee to the press:

“The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—“trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they 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. Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.”

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

Dr. Michael Mann, Penn State Univ., Cleared of Bogus and Laughable Rightwing Charges of Conspiracy and Data Manipulation:

‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data’
An academic inquiry into the so-called "climategate" email scandal has concluded that a well-known U.S. scientist did not directly or indirectly falsify data in his research.

While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State," said the inquiry report, published by the university on Wednesday.

The report concluded that one particular criticism about the researchers using a "trick" to create a graph showing rising temperatures, was actually referring to the use of an accepted scientific formula for producing an accurate graph.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2518632#ixzz0kSvY6TYq

 

[DamnYankee]

Oh, so you and your fellow parrots were for all the proposed pollution reforms?

Give me a fucking break......the foolish tax credits were a bad move, a compromise that Gore opted for in his advocations....and your corporate bretheren are NOT exactly the most forth coming and compliant people in this matter. They just want to be left to business as usual.

See genius, you and the other idiots on this subject are so knee jerk in your defense of the corporate system that you contradict yourselves eventually.....as I previously pointed out.

What proposed pollution reforms?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Oh, so you and your fellow parrots were for all the proposed pollution reforms?

Give me a fucking break......the foolish tax credits were a bad move, a compromise that Gore opted for in his advocations....and your corporate bretheren are NOT exactly the most forth coming and compliant people in this matter. They just want to be left to business as usual.

See genius, you and the other idiots on this subject are so knee jerk in your defense of the corporate system that you contradict yourselves eventually.....as I previously pointed out.

What proposed pollution reforms?

I'm tired of doing your homework for you, Southie. You're not playing dumb.....and yet you argue with a willful ignorance that is apalling.

But hope springs eternal

http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

 

[tinfoil]

Weren't you and the other clowns down playing (if not outright denying) a decade of unprecendented melting in the first place?

What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?

How many times does it take for you idiots to get it? I don't want to pay extra taxes to fight imaginary foes! WTF is so damn hard for you to understand about that? Now STFU and go buy some carbon credits, stupid warmer

 

[tinfoil]

So your contention is that the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is in collusion with a vast global conspiracy of liberal climate scientists to manipulate data and defraud the public? Wow, interesting theory. Why hasn’t the U.S. National Academy of Sciences – the brightest scientific minds in the country – been able to penetrate this nefarious global conspiracy of liberal scientists that somehow, you, Southernman, Tinfoil and Meme have been able to deduce? That's really quite remarkable that you and Tinfoil have cracked the case, while NASA and the US Academy of Sciences have been totally punked and befuddled.

Bro', you got fooled into believing this climate gate nonsense because of some rightwing blogs and rightwing publications. Your fall-back position that the professionals charged with investigating are now lying isn’t worthy of serious consideration; i.e., you’ve invented a fake, faux-“scandal” that can’t be disproven because everyone’s lying about it….except for the rightwing blogs, of course.

post the science, mr warmer!!

You are an idiot