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."
you say stolen, I say leaked. up yours you homo, they found your shitty emails and this research is a fraud.
Oxburgh's credibility has already been trashed because of his association with bodies which will gain from all the climate scaremongering. Kerry Emanuel had this to say about CRU even before the inquiry started:
"What we have here," says Kerry Emanuel, are "thousands of emails collectively showing scientists hard at work, trying to figure out the meaning of evidence that confronts them. Among a few messages, there are a few lines showing the human failings of a few scientists" Emanuel believes that "scientifically, it means nothing," because the controversy doesn't challenge the overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic warming. He is far more concerned with the well-funded "public relations campaign" to drown out or distort the message of climate science, which he links to "interests where billions, even trillions are at stake..." This "machine has been highly successful in branding climate scientists as a bunch of sandal-wearing, fruit-juice drinking leftist radicals engaged in a massive conspiracy to return us to agrarian society"
This was said during an MIT debate months before the CRU investigation started. So he had already made up his mind about everything to do with CRU even before the investigation.
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.
There is the additional problem : they were wrong. So much is admitted.
Yes, perhaps they got very lucky indeed and arrived not far from the correct answer according to actually ... you know ... correct reasoning. But they were still wrong. In fact the history of global warming theory is fraught with wrong methods.
Even if that small correction is all that comes out of this, we should be thankful for climate sceptics, since having them around leads to improving science.
And frankly, given how much "compliance" there is with the (fundamentally unproveable, sorry but I do exact sciences, statistics, when correct, have been known to produce radically wrong conclusions. Statistics, when flawed, well ... Proof means A => B => C, not "A generally leads to B, except when el Nino does it's thing, or except when the solar minimum coincides with the X minimum, and we still don't know what caused that dip". I'm sure you can understand why this sort of reasoning, no matter how many statistics underpin it, offends anyone with a background in exact science. I mean, mathematicians criticize the proof of relativity theory for playing fast and loose with at least 2 variables, and quantum mechanics for playing fast and loose with making up new variables, and that's frankly exactly the way it should be)
I would like to make the point that "wrong methods arriving at the correct conclusion" is exactly what you'd expect for prediction of a chaotic system. Of course, the prediction is not actually going to match reality ever. As are the constant corrections : no matter how correct your method, no matter how precise your data, you'll still have to adjust predictions every new iteration. It is "taken for granted" that weather is chaotic (despite not matching every mathematical test of chaos), and it is equally "taken for granted" that climate is not chaotic, despite matching more tests for chaos than those weather patterns match. I find this a very curious way of thinking.
But then again, I'm only a math postgrad, and admittedly I have pet peeves with theories that are considered amongst the most well established theories existing (yes I do think most "recent" physics theories (all except the basic standard model) are fundamentally flawed in quite a few ways, hell I think people should stop the big bang nonsense since it's just frankly too trivial to prove that it cannot have occured without suspending every law of physics). But the theoretical basis for global warming, that is not just playing fast and loose with maths, it's more like ignoring it altogether. It looks like a house of cards, where most people don't even care that a lot of cards are missing on the bottom level and ever more weight (*cough* ever more ridiculous conclusions) are added on top.
What is the answer to the question of chaotic climate ? ("climate is not chaotic because otherwise all our work would be worthless")
What is the answer to the question of those statistical methods not working in a non-thermodynamic-equilibrium system ? ("we don't have any other methods, so let's just use the known flawed ones", or "they're not flawed")
What is the answer to the question of solar influence ? ("we can't predict the rather temperamental sun, but we assume it's not going to do anything weird")
What is the answer to the question of the feedback coefficient, and the fact that the tinyest of adjustments plays so wildly with this extremely important number ? ("IPCC has decided that it's "X", ok there are some scientists that have measured it, but once you make the point that if it's anything other than a function that directs the earth to 21 degrees celcius we would have been burnt to a crisp or frozen solid billions of years ago things go silent)
What is the answer to "surely you've got all the variables covered, right ?" ? (the answer is "of course", despite loads (and I mean 10-15) new variables getting added every iteration of the IPCC's report).
An
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.
If you don't mind, I'd like to see these background checks. I wanna have a solid argument to produce next time my father and I get into a discussion about whether or not Fox is to be listened to. In summary and conclusion: [citation needed]
Why do people do this? Admit they're too fusking lazy to keep up and too inept to find things on their own? Google was invented for a reason ya know.
This isn't Wikipedia. If you're really soooo interested in making a solid argument to a point that is apparent and obvious - get your own facts. As if there are not already enough sites to choose from showing in explicit detail the political hacks at FOX "News". Besides I'm not sure I'd want a man with your "talents" arguing a point anyway... /soapbox. Send your mental opponents to www.thedailyshow.com and move on, or www.moveon.org. You'd be wasting your breath anyway - as I am with you.
-[d]-
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...
Are you the lab partner who does all the work because everybody else is so stupid and then complains about having to do it all?
If that were the case, then yes, I would complain. Wouldn't you? I get the distinct impression you're still living off someone else's income.
-[d]-
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.
Stalinist authoritarian horse-shit. No ... we do not have make YOUR decision. Doing nothing shoves it up your azzwhole which is worth plenty. If ya can't prove ,,, then ya don't move. If ya don't know then blo.