Jones and the CRU exonerated again

[uke2se]

Until this has been resolved they aren't. Sorry.

Yes they are. Twice now, even.

You really really want these assertions to stick, don't you?

/Edit: I'll just repeat the quotes in case you missed them the first time:

We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.

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.

 

[Furcifer]

No, CRU and Jones haven't been admonished. They have been exonerated.

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona.
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London.
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge


These guys aren't in the position to exonerate anyone but perhaps a few University students breaking bylaws. That's if they're on the Academic counsel.

I'm not sure who you think you are kidding?

 

[Furcifer]

Yes they are. Twice now, even.

It's actually 3.

You don't have any clue what's going on do you?

 

[uke2se]

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona.
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London.
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge


These guys aren't in the position to exonerate anyone but perhaps a few University students breaking bylaws. That's if they're on the Academic counsel.

I'm not sure who you think you are kidding?

Ah, so there needs to be a special "Exoneration group report" before Jones and CRU are exonerated?

Two independent investigation have found no truth to the many assertions leveled against CRU and Jones after SwiftHack. One investigation even commented on McIntyre's FOI issue, saying it agreed with CRU's stance of not distributing material belonging to other organizations.

I really think you should stop now. Your argument lacks connection with reality.

 

[BenBurch]

OK, then who IS in a position to exonerate them? Or, having been falsely accused by criminals who stole their papers are they marked with a scarlet letter for all time?

 

[uke2se]

It's actually 3.

You don't have any clue what's going on do you?

Why so coy? If it's 3, that's great news. Present it please.

You're funny when you're wrong, anyone ever tell you that?

 

[Furcifer]

One investigation even commented on McIntyre's FOI issue, saying it agreed with CRU's stance of not distributing material belonging to other organizations.

I agree with it as well. This isn't the issue. You obviously don't have all the info. When you get up to speed with what's going on let know OK?

Or maybe someone will fill you in instead of letting you flounder around.

 

[uke2se]

I agree with it as well. This isn't the issue. You obviously don't have all the info. When you get up to speed with what's going on let know OK?

Or maybe someone will fill you in instead of letting you flounder around.

How about you fill me in. After all, this is a science forum and you're expected to back up your assertions.

 

[BenBurch]

How about you fill me in. After all, this is a science forum and you're expected to back up your assertions.

He never does. I once had hopes that he would learn a bit here and become a reasonable contributor. But he never, ever backs anything up even if he does sometimes admit error.

 

[Furcifer]

OK, then who IS in a position to exonerate them? Or, having been falsely accused by criminals who stole their papers are they marked with a scarlet letter for all time?

This honestly I don't know. INTERPOL? 007? The Yard? Beats me, I'm not familiar with who is responsible for doing so in GB.

All I know is if a parliamentary committee can't a bunch of PhD's can't.

I'm not sure what people are being so dense about? They certainly were exonerated of most the charges. Just not all of them.

edit:— "either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.”

Is this from the Independent Climate Change Email review? I assume it's not the Information Commissioner.

 

[uke2se]

This honestly I don't know. INTERPOL? 007? The Yard? Beats me, I'm not familiar with who is responsible for doing so in GB.

All I know is if a parliamentary committee can't a bunch of PhD's can't.

In your opinion.

I'm not sure what people are being so dense about? They certainly were exonerated of most the charges. Just not all of them.

edit:— "either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.”

Is this from the Independent Climate Change Email review? I assume it's not the Information Commissioner.

Which "charges" remain?

(Please note, they were never actually charged with anything. They were accused of a bunch of stuff, most of which has turned out to be what some of us always said it was: denialist lies.)

 

[Furcifer]

Which "charges" remain?

(Please note, they were never actually charged with anything. They were accused of a bunch of stuff, most of which has turned out to be what some of us always said it was: denialist lies.)

Sorry, bad use of words. "Accusations" is a better term.


Looking at the the guys I quote they would appear to be independent, so they might be the ones we're waiting for. If it is then I'm totally wrong. They've been exonerated. Anyone know?

 

[Furcifer]

He never does. I once had hopes that he would learn a bit here and become a reasonable contributor. But he never, ever backs anything up even if he does sometimes admit error.

Oh give me a break. You know as well as I do the question of whether they deliberately deleted email to prevent access was the last thing that needed to be addressed.

The last report seems to tip toe around the issue.

 

[uke2se]

Oh give me a break. You know as well as I do the question of whether they deliberately deleted email to prevent access was the last thing that needed to be addressed.

The last report seems to tip toe around the issue.

I'd say this part answers that questions, although it's not explicit:

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.

 

[MattusMaximus]

They've been admonished not exonerated.

Those are completely different words. But I've probably got a slightly more extensive vocabulary

Obviously not extensive enough to encompass the words "I was wrong" or "it seems there was no evidence of wrongdoing" - despite the results of two of these major investigations.

Keep on moving those goalposts!

 

[MattusMaximus]

Until this has been resolved they aren't. Sorry.

Just what exactly would you consider a "resolution" in this case? What evidence will convince you that there was not some kind of cover-up by Jones and the CRU?

Be specific, please. Because when that third independent investigation comes out clearing Jones and the CRU, I want to make sure you don't attempt yet more word-smithing and goalpost moving.

 

[Poptech]

The evidence of wrong doing is overwhelming,

Scientists Behaving Badly (The Weekly Standard)

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

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

Climategate Analysis (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

 

[uke2se]

The evidence of wrong doing is overwhelming,

Scientists Behaving Badly (The Weekly Standard)

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

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

Climategate Analysis (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)

Sorry, investigations say no. Your denialist drivel is irrelevant.

 

[Poptech]

http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/white-green-tom-sawyer-sign.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 5.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Right on time, PopTech

[qimg]http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/white-green-tom-sawyer-sign.jpg[/qimg]

So... two independent investigations now conclude there was no evidence of fraud, and this is of course evidence that they're also in on the cover-up. Makes perfect sense to me *giggle*

Folks, the Conspiracy subforum is thataway ---->