"Investigation" clearing climate scientists is a whitewash

[MemeSmith]

http://climateaudit.org/

Fred Pearce, whose one-man inquiry into Climategate (The Climate Files), remains the only reasonably objective inquiry to date observes that nobody on the Muir Russell panel even asked Phil Jones whether he deleted emails”

"Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them “. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."

Very much more at link.

[SkyDaddy7]

1. And the point being?

[MemeSmith]

7. The point being

The people who are responsible for the temperature record estimates that mainstream climate science is based upon hid their source data, had their papers peer reviewed by each other, conspired to ostracise a journal that expected them to subject themselves to proper peer review and conspired to destroy their source data, rather than make it availble to others who may expose the 'fixes' that they put into their graphs.

They inverted the medieval warm period in their records, to produce a 'hockey stick' that didn't have an inconvenient historic period warmer than the current time. They deleted the most recent tree ring data from their record, when it showed a recent decline in temperature that they claimed was a warming. They replaced this data with a temperature record from a selected subset of surface thermometer stations, a 'trick' that they specifically claimed that they would never do.

They then funded their own 'independent' inquiry to tell the public that they weren't lying. The number two on this independent inquiry had spent 18 years at the university being investigated, but declined to mention this on his inquiry bio.

This 'inquiry' interviewed only the people being investigated, and none of their critics, in particular, the two informed critics who had proven so troublesome by requesting the source data in the first place.

Snow job.

Major, multi-billion, policy decisions will be made because of these people and they are openly conspiring to lie to you.

That's the point.

[jpak]

19. LOL!!! "had their papers peer reviewed by each other" - that is what peer is all about

what a steaming crock

:rofl:

[MemeSmith]

20. LOL I mean each other... literally each other

That's not what scientific peer review is about.

Conspiring to shut down a journal that doesn't play ball? Normal scientific activity?

[jpak]

30. So the journal editor is "in" on the conspiracy too?

Sending review copies back and forth to the evil climate scientists that fudge the facts?

Do you know how science journals conduct reviews of manuscripts?

or...do we think that two science guys can "peer review" their manuscripts by sending them to each other to be rubber stamped - and editors just print what they send them?

too funny

:rofl:

Oh yeah - I didn't see anything about the "journal shutdown" fairy tale posted on climateaudit - please humor us with that horseshit.

[bergie321]

47. Didn't you know?

Every scientist in the world is "in on it". Not even Exxon or BP with their billions of dollars of profits cannot crack this web of conspiracy...:sarcasm:

[jpak]

50. The only google hit I got was a wikipedia article which claimed the wackjob libertarian mag 'Reason'

published some horseshit about evil climate scientists trying to get journal editors removed that they didn't like.

If that had truely happened, it would have been reported in Science and Nature.

not some stupid right wing rag

yup!

[SkyDaddy7]

54. LOL! You seriously need to learn how science works!

[bemildred]

2. Nobody cares.

Really, it makes no difference to most of us. We never heard of him before this anyway.

[jpak]

3. Deniers keep on denying

Deniers use stolen email to fabricate scandals

Deniers are conspiracy theorists that ignore peer reviewed data

Deniers barrage climate scientists with hate mail and death threats

Deniers are anti-science and cannot handle the truth...

they are wrong.

yup!

[blm]

4. What do YOU think about the matters involved?

.

[MemeSmith]

32. Thanks for asking

I'm troubled that what's being presented in the media appears to me to be an orthodoxy that is not supported by the data.

I'm troubled that people that we pay to pursue the truth were so ready to destroy data, rather than have their claims exposed to genuinely critical scrutiny.

I'm troubled at the conflating of climate change and greenhouse effect, where adapting to one may be necessary and inevitable, while addressing the other may be futile. (Please note 'may be')

I'm troubled by what appear to me to be conscious and and crafted logical fallacies in the arguments used in support of the orthodoxy, such as straw men and diversion. It appears to me that the public is being gamed.

For the record, I'm a UK liberal democrat and I don't watch Fox. I'm not emotionally attached to fossil fuels, and I'm a big fan of renewables, but I don't like being played and I think that we're being played.

My own suspicion is that climate change is as real now as it has always been (14000 years ago, the north polar ice cap covered most of the UK after all), but that our part in it is overstated and we would be better served by trying to adapt to it than spitting in the wind. It's a suspicion. A personal view.

[Orrex]

40. At the risk of seeming inhospitable, your "personal view" is not supported by the data

Humanity's influence on global warming has been well established through a wide range of methods. To assert that we're simply witnessing an upward temperature trend is to deny the evidence of reality.

I don't care to get into a big discussion about it with you, both because I suspect that you might not be among us for very long and because I've had this discussion before, and your type of deniers invariably paint themselves as reasonable seekers-of-evidence but are in fact hardcore contrarians.

[jpak]

53. "I'm troubled at the conflating of climate change and greenhouse effect"

are you series?

:rofl:

:wow:

[Ichingcarpenter]

56. Dr. Science from Fire Sign Theater

or from Duck's Breath Mystery Theatre which I think was a branch off of FST.

I believe he's posting now.

[blm]

58. I disagree with your use of the word genuine to describe the critics. They are highly paid HACKS

here in the US and their job is to convince impressionable minds that the science is still inconclusive when it isn't.

[walldude]

5. LMFAO.. yeah you are going to get plenty of support here

on an anti-Global Warming stance. I hate to break it to you but you have fallen into a place where people are well informed. We don't watch Fox news which has been proven to make you less informed the more you watch it, we don't listen to scientists who work for Exxon/Mobile and we don't give a fuck about some stupid e-mails. Anyone with half a brain, after watching the weather patterns in the last 10 years, can see that the climate is changing. You want to argue about how or why, fine but if you come in here with something as lame-brained as denying Climate Change you will be served up as so much red meat.

[neverforget]

6. Brought to you by the fossil fuel industry to continue to lie and obfuscate

the issue of climate change. They have everything to lose because their bottom line rests on continued exploitation of fossil fuels.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. About Steve McIntyre --

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_McIntyre

[MemeSmith]

36. Not sure how relevant this is.

I mean, don't go there for a stranger's opinion on the net.

The point of going there is to access the source data, when it is quoted and linked. You can check the sources to verify.

It's not about his opinions, which may be influenced by his associations.

It's about the information that is made available, the sources of that information and whether you can check those sources or not.

The data is the data. Check the data. Who handed it you you is of no consequence.

Ignore any opinions.

Including mine.

[ljm2002]

44. "Not sure how relevant this is" ??? ha ha ha

From the link:

Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. "I've spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals," he said in 2009.

Do you claim this is not true? Is there some reason you think that people ought not to know this about Mr. McIntyre? Are you really suggesting that his background is irrelevant to his views on this topic?

[hatrack]

65. "Don't go there for a stranger's opinion on the net" - how appropriate.

:eyes:

[blogslut]

10. Shocking!

An article that professes skepticism on the exoneration of Phil Jones - from a blog that promotes climate change skepticism!

[geek tragedy]

11. Nothing transparent about this post

or the OP.

Nope. This poster is NOT a GOP troll.

[bergie321]

14. But his icon is a soccer ball

And we all know that soccer was invented by the communists to subvert the god-fearin', gun-totin', red-blooded Americans. Just ask the independent, historian and University Dean Glenn Beck.

[Viking12]

64. It's true. Soccer is a socialist sport.

Bush's speechwriter says so.....
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/07/dumbass_quote_of_the_day_174.php

[G_j]

12. 97% of Scientists Still Agree: Man is Causing Climate Change

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/97-percent-scientists-man-causing-climate-change.php?campaign=daily_nl

97% of Scientists Still Agree: Man is Causing Climate Change
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 06.22.10
Science & Technology


A new study has once again confirmed what we already knew -- that the vast, vast majority of scientists working in the field are convinced by the evidence that there is human-induced climate change. This latest analysis is one of the largest surveys yet attempted, and examines 1,372 known working climate researchers. The result is similar to previous studies: 97-98% of the scientists agree that there is ample evidence that human activity is warming the planet. There is, in other words, a huge consensus.

From the New York Times report, Study Affirms Consensus on Climate Change:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/

The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world's
active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.

For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.

Which means, out of the top 50 climate researchers, only one holds a dissenting view (Richard Lindzen, is that you?). Out of 200, only 5 or 6. This is an overwhelming consensus -- one that, it's important to remember -- is rare in most fields. You rarely see such definitive majorities in other fields -- especially ones that the media insists on portraying as being a source of "ongoing debate."


The new report deals another blow to the credibility of so-called skeptics, as well:

The study demonstrates that most of the scientists who have been publicly identified as climate skeptics are not actively publishing in the field. And the handful who are tend to have a slim track record, with about half as many papers published as the scientists who accept the mainstream view.


..more..

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. Climategate: No whitewash, but CRU scientists are far from squeaky clean

Linked to the Guardian article which is what the blog refereed to


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists



Its not a bad observation on some of the problems that started so called Climategate
His article is more a critic on transparency of the scientific organization and departmentalization that created the conflict
not on there is not global warming.

The OP title's is misleading and his blog link sucks.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. THIS IS THE REAL TITLE of the Guardian article NOT THE OPs

The OP needs to change his title.

[MemeSmith]

17. Not a Guardian Article

Therefore the OP will keep his title.

I linked to Climate Audit, to provide alternative data for those who care to review it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. Your Blog is not reputable

He misrepresented the article and even the title

He did not quote the title of the article nor the what was the jest of the Guardian article


Now go away

[jpak]

23. Not a Guardian article - just a link to a wackjob conspiracy theorist website

yup!

[MemeSmith]

26. Don't follow the link

It's just a wackjob conspiracy theorist website.

Don't check for yourselves.

Don't form your own conclusions.

Don't review the source data provided there.

Keep taking the blue pill, Neo.

[jpak]

29. I did and it was a wackjob website piled high with steaming heaps of horseshit

That guy has published no peer reviewed evidence to support his arguments.

Did he condemn the theft of those emails?

nope

That speaks volumes about deniers and shit thy will plumb to support their unsupportable position.

yup!

[MemeSmith]

33. All whistleblowing is against the rules

The theft of those emails is what showed us what the CRU were up to.

The theft of those emails was a service to science.

Why on earth would anyone with any interest in the truth condemn the publication of evidence of wrongdoing?

[jpak]

41. The email theft is the *true* conspiracy here along with the death threats against those researchers

Independent investigations in the US and UK exonerated all concerned.

There was no "wrongdoing"

That's what got the deniers chasing their tails and posting their horseshit today.

yup!

[MemeSmith]

34. However

You followed the link and you came to your own conclusion, so I respect your opinion.

I just disagree with you, but hey, that's democracy.

The link is there, so anyone else who wants to form their own view, as you did, can do so.

Job done.

[girl gone mad]

45. The blogger links to someone I know to be a complete wackjob.

so..

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Denial is not just a river in Egypt... n/t

[MemeSmith]

18. Some things merit denial

The questions of climate history and prospects are also complex, so it's possible to deny one element of a hypothesis, while concurring with other elements.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. Ahh, the old irreducible complexity argument used most often by creationists.

It doesn't fly.

The scientific case for global warming caused by human intervention is as sound as any scientific endeavor today.

[bergie321]

24. Some things do

But climate change is based on solid science.

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This was proven in the 1850s.
Fact: We are increasing the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere at an exponential pace.

Unless you can dispute either of the 2 facts above, you do not have a scientific leg to stand on.

[librechik]

25. Oh, for god's sake give it up

there have been three investigations and none of them came out the way you want. Why not try and learn something instead of sticking to some story you wish were true until it makes a fool out of you?

[MemeSmith]

28. Give what up?

It's not like this is my life's work.

This has taken about twenty minutes out of my life, so far.

Strangers on the internet disagree with me.

However will I cope?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, paranoia...

con jobs, thinking that anybody else is buying this shit...

that sort of thing.

[Oregone]

27. Its the damn aliens that are spreading the virus!

[MilesColtrane]

31. delete

not worth it

[Ikonoklast]

35. Slow day in the denier asylum?

Reality will eventually prove you wrong.


Good luck with the head in the sand thing, however.

[MemeSmith]

37. Looking forward to that

At the end of the day, this is all just noise.

As you say, time will tell.

I'm confident that climate change is primarily natural and human contribution is minimal.

I may be wrong. I'm just confident.

[Ikonoklast]

42. All idealogues are confident.

Enjoy your stay.

[dionysus]

38. FR is thataway -------------->

[Orrex]

39. I hear that they were engaged in a whitewash conspiracy along with Tom Sawyer

[joeybee12]

43. You're up to 43 posts...

...all stupid, climate change denial ones. Sorry, but some of us here can reason.

[Bragi]

46. The "climategate" hoax worked well for the deniers

The goal of the carbon industry shills pushing the "Climategate" story was to push out a very complicated story right on the eve of the Copenhagen conference so as to help derail that conference. They succeeded.

Needless to say, they now want to try to discredit all the subsequent studies and reviews being done to investigate the allegations, all of which so far show that the allegations of dishonesty were false, and climate science data remains solid.

Which means, as usual, getting all the paid PR folks to hit all the online forums and comment threads, this time to claim all the reviews are biased.

[Johonny]

52. I agree

the damage is done. The point of climategate was to generate negative PR. Which is did. It in no way made the science of climate studies better. It certainly did nothing to disprove or improve current climate theories. Basically climategate believers have basically fallen to the same level evolution deniers. It's a great business to be in and you can repeat the same disproven evidence again and again because the target audience wants to believe and the media will treat you as an equal.

[Bragi]

60. Well said

The media do treat as equals people who argue from evidence and those who argue from falsehoods. For media, reporting both sides constitutes "truth".

[LanternWaste]

48. Steve McIntyre is the same guy who...

Steve McIntyre is the same guy who has his own analysis of research methods invalidated (his Hockey Stick Paper), the same guy who's criticism of auditing resulted in a more refined auditing which had ZERO effect on the original findings of global mean anomalies he criticized in the first place.


Of course there's much more at the link. I imagine even a hack CRU researcher wants his 15 minutes of fame, press, and talk show circuits...

[rucky]

49. So the whitewash of the whitewash is a whitewash!

I smell a whitewash.

[jpak]

57. Three investigations (UK Parliament, Penn St., East Anglia), three exonerations = three whitewashes

a breathtakingly evil conspiracy

yup!

:D

[underpants]

55. Skipped a step there buddy- "Climategate" was a whitewash and a hoax

My favorite part about Climategate was that there were 13,000 pages of emails

Oooh thirteen THOUSAND pages--sounds impressive, sounds authoritative doesn't it?
and all those pages were read, digested, and analyzed in short order

and the finding of the hacker analysis was.... hold it wait at the same time we were being told by the same "news personalities" on the same channels was that the Health Care bill was 2,000 pages which is just toooo toooo much for anyone to read ..... in a year


okay back to what the crack-hack analysis found..... 7 quotes or was it 13 quotes?????

[librechik]

59. off to the dungeon--thank you mods

bet this post didn't move it at all. Good luck with that climate denial shit--I'm sure your grandchildren will thank you for saving them a dollar while shortening their lives by decades.

[jpak]

61. ummm...this is not a "dungeon"

harumph!

[librechik]

62. sorry, jpak--just trying to

jinx the OP (troll)

I love this forum! You're the best!

[OKIsItJustMe]

63. Scientists have always gotten a pass on this sort of thing

http://www.markfiore.com/political/watch-climate-gate-science-animation