Jones and the CRU exonerated again

[varwoche]

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)

If I arrayed the laughing dogs these inane cites deserve, maximum post size would be exceeded. I especially enjoy how you portray Inhofe as "United States Senate".

 

[uke2se]

Right on time, PopTech



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 ---->

I've always thought the conspiracy forum is the proper place for threads about AGW denialism. The denialsts can't handle the science, so they concoct conspiracy theories instead, hence the science forum isn't the right place.

For those of you who have been here longer than me and had more experience with Poptech, is he for real or is he a poe? He seems far too estranged from reality to be anything but a fictional character.

 

[Poptech]

uke2se does your bumbling rhetoric usually work with the people you talk to?

 

[uke2se]

uke2se does your bumbling rhetoric usually work with the people you talk to?

Yes. Do yours?

 

[MattusMaximus]

For those of you who have been here longer than me and had more experience with Poptech, is he for real or is he a poe? He seems far too estranged from reality to be anything but a fictional character.

I'm going to go with "ideologically driven troll" for $1000, Alex.

 

[little grey rabbit]

This time by the University itself in consultation with the Royal Society.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel


The British parliament exonerated them a couple weeks ago, and Mann was cleared a while before that.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172192


Still no sign of retraction by the people accusing CRU of wrongdoing however.

You really don't know how academic and scientific communities work, do you lomiller?

Should the Institute of Physics apologise for saying this?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.



2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

 

[uke2se]

You really don't know how academic and scientific communities work, do you lomiller?

Should the Institute of Physics apologise for saying this?

Exonerated.

Must feel bad to see your hopes and dreams dashed like that, eh rabbit? What talking points will you have left now?

 

[MattusMaximus]

You really don't know how academic and scientific communities work, do you lomiller?

Should the Institute of Physics apologise for saying this?

Exactly what, if anything, that you posted is evidence of scientific fraud, rabbit?

Please, be specific.

 

[uke2se]

Exactly what, if anything, that you posted is evidence of scientific fraud, rabbit?

Please, be specific.

I think it might be this:

prima facie

Latin is hard.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Actually on another board, I predicted he would be exonerated the very day he stood down.

I don't have any talking points. I am still trying to get lomiller to confirm that 1% variation in insolation is really the figure they use for modelling the ice core historic data set.

He is reluctant to do so, poor boy, because he knows if he says "yes" it confirms climate change science really is a pseudo science.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Exactly what, if anything, that you posted is evidence of scientific fraud, rabbit?

Please, be specific.

Fraud has a very high bar, as you need to show intent. There are a lot of other scientific crimes and misdemeanors that don't run to fraud.

 

[MattusMaximus]

post deleted

 

[little grey rabbit]

Fraud has a very high bar, as you need to show intent. There are a lot of other scientific crimes and misdemeanors that don't run to fraud.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Fraud has a very high bar, as you need to show intent. There are a lot of other scientific crimes and misdemeanors that don't run to fraud.

So I assume that I can take this as an admission that there was no scientific fraud on the part of Jones and the CRU, correct?

If you want to quibble about Jones being a jerk for not freely sharing info, fine with me, but I'm concerned about whether or not the science is sound.

And, after two independent investigations, it seems that it was (is).

 

[little grey rabbit]

So I assume that I can take this as an admission that there was no scientific fraud on the part of Jones and the CRU, correct?

If you want to quibble about Jones being a jerk for not freely sharing info, fine with me, but I'm concerned about whether or not the science is sound.

And, after two independent investigations, it seems that it was (is).

Personally I am neither in position to accuse him or clear him scientific fraud.

You are confusing the concept of incorrect finding and conclusions and scientific fraud.

Scientific fraud has some formal definitions and various opinions how to interpret these definitions.

Personally I think the "hide the decline" "trick" was getting borderline into scientific fraud. Its an inappropriate way to present data in any case.

It is, unfortunately, not uncommon to present data in a misleading or less than transparent way and it should be discouraged. The "trick" was, in my opinion, a particularly egregious example.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Or to put it another way the absence of scientific fraud has no bearing on whether the science is sound or not.

There is much incorrect science published that is not the result of scientific fraud.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Personally I think the "hide the decline" "trick" was getting borderline into scientific fraud. Its an inappropriate way to present data in any case.

It is, unfortunately, not uncommon to present data in a misleading or less than transparent way and it should be discouraged. The "trick" was, in my opinion, a particularly egregious example.

Still trying to drag that one out, eh? Those talking points are getting old.

For the lurkers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

AND

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

 

[uke2se]

"hide the decline" "trick"

I thought you said you didn't have any talking points. What else haven't you been honest about?

 

[Poptech]

For the lurkers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

Yes for the lurkers,

IPCC reviewer: "don’t cover up the divergence" (Watts Up With That?)
Mike's Nature Trick (Climate Audit)
Mike’s Nature Trick (Watts Up With That?)
The Deleted Data from the "Hide the Decline" Trick (Watts Up With That?)
How “The Trick” was pulled off (Watts Up With That?)

 

[MattusMaximus]

Or to put it another way the absence of scientific fraud has no bearing on whether the science is sound or not.

There is much incorrect science published that is not the result of scientific fraud.

Well, the Royal Society disagrees with you. So do other scientific institutions such as the National Academies of Science, the AAAS, NOAA, and NASA. You know, seeing as how those are all organizations which agree with the scientific consensus on climate change, and many of those organizations have research which confirms the findings by Jones and the CRU.

I'm thinking you lose on this one.