Slashdot Mirror
Second Inquiry Exonerates Climatic Research Unit
mvdwege writes "After being cleared of charges of misconduct by a parliamentary committee, now the CRU has the results of the inquiry (PDF) by a panel of scientists into their scientific methods. Here is the CRU press release. Criticisms: The statistical methods used, though arriving at correct results, are not optimal, and it is recommended future studies involve professional statisticians if possible; and the CRU scientists are lacking somewhat in organization. A very far cry from the widespread allegations of fraud. It seems 'Climategate' is ending with a whimper."
I am trying to understand why everything which spews from the mouths of one side of the arena is "taken out of context," or a regrettably misspoken statement which, given the opportunity, would be stated differently, and phone calls are made to people like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharption, the Special Olympics, and that makes everything okay. The other side, however, gets crucified.
The double standard would be amusing if so much was not at stake.
Frankly, I prefer not to be considered a "denier," but as supporter of Cyclical Earth Processes, and everyone else is a Cyclical Process Denier. Or, how about a supporter of the idea of Solar Influence, and everyone else is a Sun Denier. I like that.
By the way, I formed a consortium of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We can conclusive prove with our peer-reviewed papers that 9/11 was an inside job. Our peers, of course, being other members of our consortium.
When I worked for a support department, we issued ourselves awards printed with The PrintShop v54. We then advertised ourselves as "Award Winning Support."
Ad nauseum.
If you take the entire global climate change (uh, climates change... ISTR being taught how several deserts in the world used to be quite lush) or global warming picture as a whole, you can trace it back to see where it started, where scientific "consensus" began to be encouraged *cough*extorted*cough*, where evil rich people who consume much much more, and subsequently excrete a larger "carbon footprint," than the average citizen they vilify stand to make millions upon millions of dollars. You know, at some point it sounds quite reasonable that human arrogance reigns supreme on several fronts.
By your logic, these people should also be held in contempt as they stand to make money from lying to you. MSNBC, CNN, and others should also be held in contempt for supporting and expounding the lies, since they stand to make money from it. In particular General Electric, which owns NBC, stands to make a shit load of money from several government proposals, which would normally make most anti-corporation types go absolutely ape shit.
Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change is a fucking scam. I sat on the other side of the fence for a while then on the fence for a short time. But the more I looked into it for myself (Google that shit... I'm not doing your homework for you) the more I became convinced that the scientific process has been corrupted and bastardized, and the majority of the support for it is emotional and based upon "facts" which refer to themselves. Al Gore is a fraud and should be held accountable for his part. Anybody who promotes this scam should be held with high skepticism.
One of my favorite quotes about global warm/cli(fuck it) came from an episode of "King of the Hill," in a clip sent to me by a colleague. One of the characters is selling "carbon credits" and explains it as a way for those who are worried about the environment to not have to actually do anything about it
*Sigh* Oh, for the good ol' days of anthropogenic Global Cooling (circa 1970's).
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
They've taken it a step further, though. They not only cherry-pick their data, but they refuse to provide the data to others so they can do the scientific thing and research it themselves.
So it doesn't even matter if they have a falsifiable theory or not... Nobody can test it except them.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
These are NOT independent scientists for the most part. There's clear, vested interests.
Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS -- Honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables(amongst other climate change related positions and business interests.)
Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich -- Pro AGW climate change scientist.
Prof Kerry Emanuel -- Pro AGW climate change scientist, who has a successful career publishing books on the subject.
Prof Lisa Graumlich -- Pro AGW climate change scientist. Successful in getting funds to create new Climate change research units at U of A
Prof David Hand -- OK, was a big critic of the Hockey Stick graph. He may be the only independent scientist here, or he needs further investigation.
Prof Herbert Huppert -- close to the Labour Government, currently in receipt of funding to research formation of ice on Polar Ice caps.
Prof Michael Kelly -- Heavily involved with Labour Government. Chairman of the Laird Group plc, a defense contractor.
Maybe it isn't a cover-up. But it sure LOOKS like a cover-up. I doubt they could have found much more of a more biased group of scientists. A cover-up is the logical conclusion. Find some genuinely independent scientists who agree with their results, and maybe we can start trusting again.
I'm sure Al Gore could shake loose some of his change to hire several statisticians.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Sounds like what you have there are the makings of a religion!
You have to take it on faith that climate isn't chaotic.
You have to take it on faith that known flawed statistical methods will somehow work correctly.
You have to take it on faith that the sun is meaningless (and how you can do that is like believing in Joseph Smith and the Golden Tablet In A Hat...)
And so on and so forth...
This is a blatant lie. The IPCC summarizes peer-reviewed scientific research. It doesn't do research of its own. And all the alarmist claims about major errors in IPCC reports have turned out to be either completely false, or blown way out of proportion.
This is a blatant lie. It did no such thing.
This is another blatant lie. Temperatures have not declined. On the contrary.
Yet another blatant lie.
You are yet another denialists who behaves exactly like creationists. Gish Gallop and all.
Clever signature text goes here.
They did no such thing.
This is, of course, a lie.
More lies. The evidence is clear. Thousands of peer-reviewed reports have shown us the facts.
This is projection. The politics here is a bunch of rich right-wing liars spreading lies about science. Just like Evolution vs. creotards. Do we have a problem? We don't honestly know
Yes, we do. We do know. Right-wingers willfully rejecting the facts won't change that.
The only lies here are yours. They didn't wrongly manipulate their data sources. Your urban heating nonsense is like listening to a deranged creationist spew out lies about crocoducks. Truly pathetic.
In fact, even Watts' (denialist) attempt to cherry-pick weather stations that were "good enough" turned out to fit the data perfectly.
Spoken like a true creationist. Insane conspiracy theories based on a diseased religious brain.
They did nothing to damage the scientific facts. You even ignore the story you are replying to. But that's what creationists/denialists do: Ignore the facts, and lie.
Clever signature text goes here.
There is no CRU scandal. The only scandal is that the whole CRU thing is a manufactroversy, and that so many people are too lazy to look beyond the blatant lies about the CRU e-mails, and notice the powerful and rich people who created this manufactroversy in order to undermine science and replace it with their own ideology.
Clever signature text goes here.