Jones and the CRU exonerated again

lomiller

Penultimate Amazing
lomiller
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
13,208
We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.
Click to expand...

ex·on·er·ate (g-zn-rt)
tr.v. ex·on·er·at·ed, ex·on·er·at·ing, ex·on·er·ates
1. To free from blame.
2. To free from a responsibility, obligation, or task.

This says nothing about the ongoing investigation related to obstruction and FOI. So far 2 threads, 2 failures.

I've included the definition of "exonerates" this time so the next thread isn't as big a fail as this one and the last one. Keep trying though :D
 
3bodyproblem said:
ex·on·er·ate (g-zn-rt)
tr.v. ex·on·er·at·ed, ex·on·er·at·ing, ex·on·er·ates
1. To free from blame.
2. To free from a responsibility, obligation, or task.

This says nothing about the ongoing investigation related to obstruction and FOI. So far 2 threads, 2 failures.

I've included the definition of "exonerates" this time so the next thread isn't as big a fail as this one and the last one. Keep trying though :D
Click to expand...

I'd say that the definition we're looking at here is the first one, as was it for the first thread. Jones and CRU have been accused of lying, fraud, messing with data and more. They have now been exonerated.

Questions?
 
3bodyproblem said:
This says nothing about the ongoing investigation related to obstruction and FOI. So far 2 threads, 2 failures.
Click to expand...

what ongoing investigation relating to FOI? The only FOI requests were rejected by the FOI officer long ago.
 
lomiller said:
what ongoing investigation relating to FOI? The only FOI requests were rejected by the FOI officer long ago.
Click to expand...

There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make representations, to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act. In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the six-month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions.
Click to expand...

This hasn't been resolved has it?
 
uke2se said:
I'd say that the definition we're looking at here is the first one, as was it for the first thread. Jones and CRU have been accused of lying, fraud, messing with data and more. They have now been exonerated.

Questions?
Click to expand...

No. You've been deliberately mislead to think that.

None of these have spoken to the claims that Jones and a few others at the CRU may have cooked the data.

Again this hasn't been entirely resolved, unless I missed something?
 
3bodyproblem said:
lol. That's brilliant logic. "They got away with it, so it's resolved"
Click to expand...


It's kind of hard to prove yourself innocent when there is no court case, yet unless they do you conclude they were guilty. seems like you are leaving no possibility the charges are false, no matter what the investigations say.
 
3bodyproblem said:
No. You've been deliberately mislead to think that.

None of these have spoken to the claims that Jones and a few others at the CRU may have cooked the data.

Again this hasn't been entirely resolved, unless I missed something?
Click to expand...

I think you missed something. The bloggers, arm-chair scientists and wack-jobs who went on all out attack against science after SwiftHack now have to eat their words. It's great when science wins! :D
 
lomiller said:
It's kind of hard to prove yourself innocent when there is no court case, yet unless they do you conclude they were guilty. seems like you are leaving no possibility the charges are false, no matter what the investigations say.
Click to expand...

The "investigations" have stated quite clearly, there is some evidence of foul play but the statute of limitations has run out. Just because charges haven't been filed, or might never be filed, doesn't mean the law wasn't broken.

"Exonerated" is hyperbole. If that's what you need then so be it. I'm not being fooled by it.

Resume the circle jerk :p
 
3bodyproblem said:
Slight exaggeration on my part, no more so than claiming they were exonerated.
Click to expand...

The Panel was set up by the University in consultation with the Royal Society to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit in the light of various external assertions.
Click to expand...

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.
Click to expand...

We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.
Click to expand...

It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in government.
Click to expand...

A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.
Click to expand...

Exonerated. Even from the FOI claims.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
I think you missed something. The bloggers, arm-chair scientists and wack-jobs who went on all out attack against science after SwiftHack now have to eat their words. It's great when science wins! :D
Click to expand...

They've been admonished not exonerated.

Those are completely different words. But I've probably got a slightly more extensive vocabulary :D
 
3bodyproblem said:
They've been admonished not exonerated.

Those are completely different words. But I've probably got a slightly more extensive vocabulary :D
Click to expand...

No, CRU and Jones haven't been admonished. They have been exonerated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom