Jones and the CRU exonerated again

[Megalodon]

So you cite a lack of objectivity in the Speigel article and in the same post speak of exoneration (a word I don't believe was used btw) from an inquiry done by friends.

Is it? So you can prove where I cited lack of objectivity, and list the friends of the CRU in both inquiries that exonerated it, and Jones.

And BTW, what kind of illiterate moron needs to have one particular word written for a concept to apply?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Well I assume that a moron who would use the word would understand its actual meaning. I would also think that if the inquiry "exonerated" him and them, they would have actually said so. Seems it wasn't the case.
The paper was strangely short and written by friends sympathetic to 'the cause'.

As for friends, a quick check will reveal climate scientists on the panel as well as a couple who outlined Jones' innocence prior to the inquiry.

But you have made a good attempt to move away from Speigel, so before I go providing the evidence you ask for, you can first show why von Storch lacked objectivity. OK.

 

[Megalodon]

Well I assume that a moron who would use the word would understand its actual meaning. I would also think that if the inquiry "exonerated" him and them, they would have actually said so. Seems it wasn't the case.

From Dictionary.com
ex·on·er·ate
   /ɪgˈzɒnəˌreɪt/ Show Spelled[ig-zon-uh-reyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1.
to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the accusation of cheating.

A word represents a concept, but the concept doesn't need to be represented by that word.

The paper was strangely short and written by friends sympathetic to 'the cause'.

Which of the two?

As for friends, a quick check will reveal climate scientists on the panel as well as a couple who outlined Jones' innocence prior to the inquiry.

Which of the two?

But you have made a good attempt to move away from Speigel, so before I go providing the evidence you ask for, you can first show why von Storch lacked objectivity. OK.

When did I say such a thing? Retract the claim, please.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Or the Spiegel article - that took real strides to present the delayers as virtuous rebels against a corrupt system, while ignoring reality and spouting most of the delayers debunked talking points - is not particularly objective.

When did I say such a thing? Retract the claim, please.

See bolded. Why do I need to retract?

Now please show us how von Storch lacked objectivity.

 

[Megalodon]

A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

By Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter

You need to retract because I didn't mention van Storch.

 

[BenBurch]

All scientists are friends, Megalodon, I am surprised that as a scientist you did not know this! Did we not get around to teaching you the secret handshake?

This is why scientists never argue, or play scientific politics, and why for all grants there is only ever ONE applicant.

Because this is the only way that this grand Illuminati conspiracy A.A.Alfie and others clearly believe exists could prosper.

 

[Megalodon]

All scientists are friends, Megalodon, I am surprised that as a scientist you did not know this! Did we not get around to teaching you the secret handshake?

Only the european version... But on the other hand I'm buddies with everyone here, including the CRU

This is why scientists never argue, or play scientific politics, and why for all grants there is only ever ONE applicant.

Of course, and all our grants are accepted, as are our articles and job applications. We're like the masons, only bald and with a white coat

Because this is the only way that this grand Illuminati conspiracy A.A.Alfie and others clearly believe exists could prosper.

He doesn't. He's on the fence, he just says what other people are saying

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Can you explain why Hans von Storch, the leading German climatologist disagrees with you?

and

he [von Storch] says, "even if I'm certain that the new curve will not look significantly different from the old one."

Am I missing something?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Do you know what data are plotted in panel A?

Here's a hint:
The caption for it is
"Time series of some individual 1° × 1° boxes at (a) 42°N, 66°W, 100 m; (b) trend lines for 42°N, 66°W, on same scale as other graphs; (c) 51°N, 131°W, 100 m; (d) 40°N, 155°W, 100 m; and (e) 23°N, 156°W, 500 m. Trend lines are fitted only by data within the periods they cover."

 

[Megalodon]

Am I missing something?

Yes, van Storch only said that because he's Jones friend and partial to the CRU. He's only being honest in the parts where he appears to be condemning the CRU.

 

[little grey rabbit]

and



Am I missing something?

Yeap, nuance.

I don't know what things are like in the United States, but you will never get the leading German climate specialist come out and say "Phil Jones is a BIG FAT LIAR".

Read his remarks in total and they are, for a German, a very powerful slap.

"Wir erleiden gerade eine massive Erosion des Vertrauens", konstatiert der deutsche Klimatologe Hans von Storch. "Durch die Politisierung ist die Klimaforschung ähnlich korrumpiert worden wie zuvor die Atomphysik, die uns vor Tschernobyl weismachen wollte, Kernkraftwerke seien absolut sicher."
....
"Anders lässt sich das verlorengegangene Vertrauen nicht zurückgewinnen", sagt er, "auch wenn ich sicher bin, dass die neue Kurve nicht wesentlich anders aussehen wird als die alte."

"Through politicization Climate research is becoming as corrupted as nuclear physics, which wanted us to believe before Chernobyl, that nuclear power was absolutely safe.
....
Otherwise lost trust can not be won back. Even if I am certain, that the new curve will not look substantially different that the old."

Don't fool yourself that outside the mutual support society of JREF that scientists think not be able to detail your methods and not being able to replicate how you processed the raw data on such a critical subject is viewed as acceptable or anything other than absolutely extraordinary.

Exonerated!!!!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You're not suggesting groupthink are you. Gasp!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Yeap, nuance.

I don't know what things are like in the United States, but you will never get the leading German climate specialist come out and say "Phil Jones is a BIG FAT LIAR".

Read his remarks in total and they are, for a German, a very powerful slap.

"Wir erleiden gerade eine massive Erosion des Vertrauens", konstatiert der deutsche Klimatologe Hans von Storch. "Durch die Politisierung ist die Klimaforschung ähnlich korrumpiert worden wie zuvor die Atomphysik, die uns vor Tschernobyl weismachen wollte, Kernkraftwerke seien absolut sicher."
....
"Anders lässt sich das verlorengegangene Vertrauen nicht zurückgewinnen", sagt er, "auch wenn ich sicher bin, dass die neue Kurve nicht wesentlich anders aussehen wird als die alte."

"Through politicization Climate research is becoming as corrupted as nuclear physics, which wanted us to believe before Chernobyl, that nuclear power was absolutely safe.
....
Otherwise lost trust can not be won back. Even if I am certain, that the new curve will not look substantially different that the old."

An American would interpret Dr. von Storch's remarks as that he believes that the results were correct but that the study should be re-done to quiet the critics.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

An American would interpret Dr. von Storch's remarks as that he believes that the results were correct but that the study should be re-done to quiet the critics.

I read it more as:
- the science is corrupted by politics
- the results might be right, but how would we know?
- let's do it over so we can be sure.

 

[little grey rabbit]

An American would interpret Dr. von Storch's remarks as that he believes that the results were correct but that the study should be re-done to quiet the critics.

A scientist would view as someone diplomatically expressing how appalled he was that Phil Jones could not replicate his work.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

An American would interpret Dr. von Storch's remarks as that he believes that the results were correct but that the study should be re-done to quiet the critics.

I read it more as:
- the science is corrupted by politics
- the results might be right, but how would we know?
- let's do it over so we can be sure.

A scientist would view as someone diplomatically expressing how appalled he was that Phil Jones could not replicate his work.

And here we see a classic example of three thoughts driven from one bit of information. Each thought is honestly stated I believe but is based on some preconceived ideas etc. No disrespect to either TKN or LGR

The first is a soft approach from a 'true believer'
the second, more diplomatic and objective (sincerely I was trying to be)
the third is harder and more critical.

So what was he trying to say? We can argue all day, but the fact is - like anything in this debate - that he put it out there; and if it is put out there and does not explicitly defend them (in this case Jones and the CRU), I personally believe it should be assumed to be a criticism and not defence. The authors know this too.

To suggest that he was defending Jones etc is naive at best, impo.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

A scientist would view as someone diplomatically expressing how appalled he was that Phil Jones could not replicate his work.

You know this because?

Incidentally, have you figured out what was being plotted in the "panel A" that you posted a day or 2 ago?

 

[Halsu]

It sounds to me that either Halsu or von Storch is - at best -completely misinformed or - at worst - lying.
I wonder who and what?

In the light of the inquiries that have been completed so far, it looks like von Storch was mistaken.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

In the light of the inquiries that have been completed so far, it looks like von Storch was mistaken.

Orly!?
So the data is available? You can prove that I suppose as well as cite where in the report they confirm this?

I'll get my popcorn shall I?

 

[Halsu]

Orly!?
So the data is available? You can prove that I suppose as well as cite where in the report they confirm this?

I'll get my popcorn shall I?

All the data has always been available, from the same sources where CRU got it from, the various meteorological organizations and so on.