Jones and CRU exonerated

[Captain.Sassy]

Stating this sort of ridiculous nonsense is pathetic.

yeah, "pathetic".

"So what was the purpose of this staged, performed investigation? The answer, to me, seems fairly obvious. As Labour MP Doug Naysmith indicated, he hoped that the report would serve as a ‘corrective’ to climate-sceptic hysteria. Investigations that are meant to serve as a ‘corrective’ to people’s misguided or immoral sentiments used to be called rituals. And that is what this the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s ‘limited inquiry’ was mostly about: a ritualised pseudo-investigation aimed at correcting people’s allegedly backward views."

Nothing conspiratorial here...
(from your article)

 

[MattusMaximus]

Stating this sort of ridiculous nonsense is pathetic.

You're right, so why do you keep talking?

 

[Poptech]

yeah, "pathetic".

"So what was the purpose of this staged, performed investigation? The answer, to me, seems fairly obvious. As Labour MP Doug Naysmith indicated, he hoped that the report would serve as a ‘corrective’ to climate-sceptic hysteria. Investigations that are meant to serve as a ‘corrective’ to people’s misguided or immoral sentiments used to be called rituals. And that is what this the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s ‘limited inquiry’ was mostly about: a ritualised pseudo-investigation aimed at correcting people’s allegedly backward views."

Nothing conspiratorial here...
(from your article)

None of that has to do with Illuminati Conspiracy, One-World Socialism or Immanentize the Eschaton as propagandized in Ben's lie.

You're right, so why do you keep talking?

Because Matt climategate has devastated the most prominent alarmist scientists, discredited much of the field of climate science and the IPCC. It is an embarrassment of epic proportion from which there is no recovery, nothing any politicians say can fix the indefensible. The public have caught on the the alarmist scam. Polls are plummeting with no chance for recovery.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Because Matt climategate has devastated the most prominent alarmist scientists, discredited much of the field of climate science and the IPCC. It is an embarrassment of epic proportion from which there is no recovery, nothing any politicians say can fix the indefensible. The public have caught on the the alarmist scam. Polls are plummeting with no chance for recovery.

Which explains why all the thorough investigations to date have cleared Phil Jones, the CRU, and the climate science community of your ham-fisted claims, right?

Oh yeah, that's right - all those investigators are in on The Conspiracy

 

[Captain.Sassy]

None of that has to do with Illuminati Conspiracy, One-World Socialism or Immanentize the Eschaton as propagandized in Ben's lie.

You mean Burch used exaggeration to humorous effect when making a point?

Hi you must be new here welcome to the internet .

Because Matt climategate has devastated the most prominent alarmist scientists, discredited much of the field of climate science and the IPCC. It is an embarrassment of epic proportion from which there is no recovery, nothing any politicians say can fix the indefensible.

come on man.

The public have caught on the the alarmist scam. Polls are plummeting with no chance for recovery.

again, come on. there's no scam. nothing in the emails showed any 'scam'. people think there was a 'scam' because of the tendency in the media to peddle sensation, so 'climate emails HIDE THE DECLINE!' is the shot heard round the world while 'Mann and Jones found to be honest scientists' won't even make the science pages of the paper. If your paper even has science pages. And even after the 'scandal' has been debunked, idiots are still parroting the falsehoods all over da net.

 

[Poptech]

Which explains why all the thorough investigations to date have cleared Phil Jones, the CRU, and the climate science community of your ham-fisted claims, right?

Name one thorough investigation by an independent scientific body.

again, come on. there's no scam. nothing in the emails showed any 'scam'. people think there was a 'scam' because of the tendency in the media to peddle sensation, so 'climate emails HIDE THE DECLINE!' is the shot heard round the world while 'Mann and Jones found to be honest scientists' won't even make the science pages of the paper. If your paper even has science pages. And even after the 'scandal' has been debunked, idiots are still parroting the falsehoods all over da net.

They haven't been found to be honest scientists, quite to the contrary the emails reveal the exact opposite,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (United States Senate)
Climategate Analysis (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

The CRU emails show scientists,

- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process

 

[BenBurch]

You mean Burch used exaggeration to humorous effect when making a point?

Hi you must be new here welcome to the internet .

...

He's also never read Illuminatus!

 

[MattusMaximus]

Name one thorough investigation by an independent scientific body.

They haven't been found to be honest scientists, quite to the contrary the emails reveal the exact opposite,

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (United States Senate)
Climategate Analysis (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

The CRU emails show scientists,

- Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
- Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
- Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
- Assuming activist roles to influence the political process

Getting your exercise by moving those goalposts again?

Have at it

ETA: You know, I just noticed that it seems as if ol' PopTech is alone in his ranting. Where are the rest of our usual suspects? Licking their wounds?

 

[BenBurch]

Getting your exercise by moving those goalposts again?

Have at it

ETA: You know, I just noticed that it seems as if ol' PopTech is alone in his ranting. Where are the rest of our usual suspects? Licking their wounds?

I suspect that the pay has dried up.

 

[lomiller]

ETA: You know, I just noticed that it seems as if ol' PopTech is alone in his ranting. Where are the rest of our usual suspects? Licking their wounds?

Except for possibly AAA, even the usual suspects would be embarrassed to be associated with PopTech.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Just to be clear: I'm not engaging in debate, just pointing out why the Iraq dossier is most certainly pertinent to this discussion. (Which may not be obvious to people who aren't familiar with UK politics)

Can we stay on topic, please? The thread is about climate science, not Iraq.

Stop derailing, folks.

The Iraq enquiry is a very good comparison for a number of reasons:

- It was a UK parliament report
- It was on a subject which strongly divided the UK public
- It was on a topic that resulted in some of the most expensive legislation of the time
- The legislation had support from both the government at the time and the opposition
- It contains clear errors.

As a brief aside, I produce scientific and engineering research, both in terms of raw data and model output. If I was to:

- produce some statistical model output (call it "data set 1")
- find my model does not match reality in regions where comparison is possible
- splice in some observational data (from "data set 2") where it does not match reality
- label my graph "data set 1" and not mention that data set 2 is spliced into it

I would expect the organisation for which I did that to be extremely embarrassed (although I could claim I simply made an error). If it was then found in an e-mail that I did that intentionally to hide something about data set 1, I would expect to be disciplined and / or sacked. It most certainly wouldn't be labelled by anyone competent as "a clever thing to do".

The fact that this act was glossed over tells me that the parliamentary inquiry failed to understand what was actually done here. Fine, it happens. But the inquiry were just plain wrong on this. Sure, advocates won't see it as wrong, just as advocates of the Iraq war couldn't (wouldn't?) see why the dossier was wrong. Again, the parallels here are remarkable.

Even ignoring this point, as 3bodyproblem rightly points out, the report also notes the need for greater transparency in climate science (something I and many others have called for, for many years) and there is still the ICO investigation and report to go yet.

Of course, those who have posted clearly incorrect claims about the e-mails should correct those claims (and I have seen many on both sides of the debate). But this is teh interwebs so don't hold your breath.

 

[uk_dave]

Because Matt climategate has devastated the most prominent alarmist scientists, discredited much of the field of climate science and the IPCC. It is an embarrassment of epic proportion from which there is no recovery, nothing any politicians say can fix the indefensible. The public have caught on the the alarmist scam. Polls are plummeting with no chance for recovery.

Well, we have a general election coming up in May. All three major parties are pretty evenly matched in the polls.

Apparently (according to deniers ) there is "no global warming/it's a natural variation/it woz the sun wot dun it/we can't do anything about it anyway, so just enjoy!" and they have the 'science' to back it up and 'public opinion' is on their side.

Gotta be a winning policy come poling day.
Don'cha think?

 

[Furcifer]

'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy (PDF) (United States Senate)

 

[Poptech]

Except for possibly AAA, even the usual suspects would be embarrassed to be associated with PopTech.

The new desperation is to attempt to use peer-pressure on other posters, sad.

 

[uke2se]

A partisan and biased report written by minions of Jim Inhofe, one of the leading denialists and one of the worlds leading experts at misinterpreting and misconstruing everything climate scientists say.

The report is basically one big lie, perpetrated by people who's interest it is to confuse the public as much as possible with regards to climate science. Don't let the US Senate seal fool you. These people are lying.

 

[Furcifer]

A partisan and biased report written by minions of Jim Inhofe, one of the leading denialists and one of the worlds leading experts at misinterpreting and misconstruing everything climate scientists say.

The report is basically one big lie, perpetrated by people who's interest it is to confuse the public as much as possible with regards to climate science. Don't let the US Senate seal fool you. These people are lying.

Well the 5th hit when you Google him is a Prison Planet article. I see he's a Christian Fundamentalist as well.

edit:nm, I see what you're saying the Dempsey and Lungren are his minions.

 

[TraneWreck]

The Iraq enquiry is a very good comparison for a number of reasons:

- It was a UK parliament report
- It was on a subject which strongly divided the UK public
- It was on a topic that resulted in some of the most expensive legislation of the time
- The legislation had support from both the government at the time and the opposition
- It contains clear errors.

I think that's highly misleading. The Iraq dossier contained clear, substantial errors that directly undercut the conclusions.

This is not true of the IPCC. Once again, the two errors you point to are a typo and an unpublished graph. Remove those two items from the IPCC report and it doesn't change the conclusion one bit.

The so-called "sexing-up" of the intelligence reports, by comparison, led to blatant misrepresentations of the known facts:

http://iraqdossier.com/sexing/thelanguage

Without that false certainty, the point of the dossier, to prove that war against Iraq was necessary, fails.

Explain how the typo about Himalayan glaciers and an unpublished graph similarly undecut the main contentions in the IPCC report.

Remember, here's what the RMS said about that graph:

"RMS believes the IPCC fairly referenced its paper; with suitable caveats around the results, highlighting the factors influencing the relationship that had been discovered between time and catastrophe costs."

 

[DogB]

You keep saying the Himalayan glacier thing was typo. That doesn't jibe with my understanding of the situation at all. I was under the impression it was a poorly referenced claim based on a phone conversation with a single scientist who made a thumb suck estimate based on little to no data.

Basically it was an anecdote.

Story here.

IPCC statement here.

 

[Halsu]

You keep saying the Himalayan glacier thing was typo. That doesn't jibe with my understanding of the situation at all. I was under the impression it was a poorly referenced claim based on a phone conversation with a single scientist who made a thumb suck estimate based on little to no data.

It seems you're both right, sort of. I did a bit of looking around, and found these...

The faulty page on the IPCC report
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html

WWF report (cited as IPCC source)
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf

The New Scientist article (cited as WWF source):
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221893.000-flooded-out.html

Dr. Hasnain's rebuttal to attributing 2035 to his interview
http://groups.google.com/group/india-ej/attach/7dffff27f7643302/Hasnain+PR+final.doc?part=4

And then finally this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport.php

The blog entry itself isn't the key point this time. Scroll down to comment #13 - it seems to be a pretty believable rundown of the events that lead up to the error in AR4 WG2.

The 2350 > 2035 typo did indeed take place, but it was already in 1999, when government run India Environment Portal published an article citing UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme's 1996 report. It seems New Scientist, WWF and finally IPCC then repeated this error, and the original source was lost from the citations along the way. So, 2035 is the result of this, but some other parts of the text are from the interview (funnily, those parts seem to actually hold water much better).

To recoup, it looks like the New Scientist / Pearce got the 2035 number from an uncited report of a real study, not the interview like they claim (as said, there was a typo in that report - the original study says 2350).

 

[CoolSceptic]

I think that's highly misleading. The Iraq dossier contained clear, substantial errors that directly undercut the conclusions.

Ugh. Why am I coming back to this debate. I must be a masochist.

Firstly, the post you quoted from me is comparing the Iraq dossier to the parliamentary investigation into the CRU report, not IPCC AR4. But that is a simple misunderstanding.

Let's see how Tony Blair faced the Iraq inquiry on this topic. His response was as follows:

Blair says he has said on many occasions it would have been better to correct the impression given by the 45-claim (ie, the Brits "45 mins from doom" headline suggesting Iraqi missiles could hit British troops in Cyprus). But he cites figures showing that it was not an important issue in the run up to the war. Some 40,000 parliamentary written questions were tabled about Iraq, Blair says. None of them mentioned the 45-minute claim. And only 2 of the 5,000 oral questions on Iraq during this period mentioned the allegation.

Yep. Tony Blair's defence of the Iraq dossier is almost word-for-word the same as your defence of the IPCC AR4. My eye-ron-ee-o-meter has pegged. He first insists the mistake doesn't affect the conclusions. Of course, that misses the point entirely. He then goes on to repeat the "one-in-a-thousand" meme which you also seem quite fond of.

Political spin is so predictable these days.

As for the rest of your points? Ah yes, you've once again completely ignored the errors that I listed, replaced them with your own list of errors, and then said those points aren't important. Which is why debating with you is such a futile endeavour.