Reply With Quote
I'm not a bit surprised, but I think the damage has already been done.
Now, if only that pesky sun would cooperate.
The British House of Commons very carefully exonerated the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia:
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
There is actually no vindication of the University. If you read the wording carefully, all kinds of facts can fall through. The language is suggestive, but not conclusive. On top of that, the committee making this report consists of 14 member. Only 5 were present. Reminds me of illegal secret meetings some of Portland's city officials had a few years ago, intentionally leaving some members out. Besides this not cons uting a quorum, of all the votes listed in the minutes, there is a consistent 3 to 1 vote. Seems very fishy to me.
Now when I read the conclusions:
Spot on considering these people would have a limited understanding on such sciences...135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to three broad conclusions.
136. Conclusion 1
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, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.
1) They note that the lack of sharing with the public is common with the AGW crowd.
2) They suggest transparency.
Yep, innocent till proven guilty. Understandable with their limited inquiry.137. Conclusion 2
In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”— we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.
I wonder if there will be a Scientific Appraisal Panel looking into this.
Not only must the science be irreproachable, but it must be transparent. Until the AGW crowd allows the populous at large to see their data and methodology, it will never be irreproachable.138. Conclusion 3
A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.
Now the part I made red is an added paragraph that three members agree to and the one didn't. Seems to me that if one disagrees with this, that it doesn't remain intact.
I'm not a bit surprised, but I think the damage has already been done.
Now, if only that pesky sun would cooperate.
Cherry picking this incident doesn't refute the 1000s of studies over the decades that global warming is real, and that is very likely anthropogenic.
but you s please continue to be dupes and agents of oil/gas/coal/VRWC corps.
Cherry picking? Those emails represent years of scientific malpractice.
And where can I get my check from Valero?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
