Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8
Presumably you are aware that 5 (ahhh, no, now 6 I think) different investigations of the stolen east anglia emails all concluded that there was no falsification of data or theory or models.
Climategate, as your media has told you to call it, was not what your media told you it was.
Now, lets see, how can I present this information in a way that you can allow yourself to consider it. Is that possible, considering that you have already said that you do not want your convictions changed?
You are aware, are you not, that ALL the investigations conducted have stated that the hacked emails did not contain anything that showed any kind of data manipulation?
I can go into detail, but first lets establish wether or not you know that investigations disproved the media claims of malfeasance.
Including an investigation that came out recently, earlier this year I think, sponsored by the republicans. Did you follow the results of that one?
|
Most recent? A good read and take
Stringer?s Amendment
Stringer proposed the following final paragraph for the report:
98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels.
This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU?s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly?s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU?s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails.
We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.?
Instead, the Committee adopted the following:
98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. Much rests on the accuracy and integrity of climate science. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. It is, however, important to bear in mind the considered view of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, that ?the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal?.132 While we do have some reservations about the way in which UEA operated, the SAP review and the ICCER set out clear and sensible recommendations.In our view it is time to make the changes and improvements recommended and with greater openness and transparency move on.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/24/s...mmittee-again/