A ruling FAR more important that the Muir "investigation"

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Jul 8, 2010.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,949
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,688
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
    The data was out there the whole time, the people doing the lying were too lazy to look it up. And the scientist being bugged by the idiots gave them ammo by telling them to go to hell.

    The 'climategate' inquiry at last vindicates Phil Jones ? and so must I | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

    The second issue, by contrast, it handles cleverly and conclusively. Instead of relying on other people's testimony, the review team carried out its own test: did publicly available data exist that would allow people to replicate CRU's temperature results? It found that the raw data were freely available on three US academic sites, and that competent researchers could write the computer code required to analyse them in less than two days, without asking CRU. It carried out its own analysis and produced a graph (Figure 6.1) almost identical to CRU's.

    Four obvious conclusions follow. First, that all the information required to test CRU's results was already freely available. Second, that the stonking fuss its critics made about alleged manipulation of its data was groundless. Third, that there was nothing special about the unit's computer codes: the corresponding fuss that climate scientists made about CRU's intellectual property was also bogus. And fourth that, by reacting so defensively, the scientists at the unit kept this fake scandal alive.
     
  3. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,949
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,688
    I suggest you are lying if you believe this drivel old fraud. There is quite incontrovertable evidence that Mann, Jones et al were actively denying FOIA requests. For you to suggest otherwise is laughable.
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
    Yes, they did. They did not see why they should waste their time when the information was freely available.
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,544
    Thanks Received:
    5,899
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,953
    Does not work that way. When someone requests their underlying information it is their responsibility to provide it. Not claim it is available go find it yourself.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,470
    Thanks Received:
    5,415
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,312
    Yes, and from now on they will. Probably hire a clerk just for this purpose, more money wasted by the denialists.
     
  7. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Umm, because they are required to comply with FoI requests if they want funding?

    Nope, that can't be a reason to actually do what they are supposed to do.
     
  9. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,203
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,942
    "1. The loss of Chinese weather station documents. A paper written in 1990 by Phil Jones, who later became the CRU head, claimed that almost all the Chinese stations whose data he was using had stayed put. This claim was used to argue that the rising temperatures in those places could not have been caused by creeping urbanisation. It later emerged that most of them had in fact moved, that many of the records of their locations had been lost, and that Jones and his co-author appear to have been reluctant to admit it."

    In the unread article OldRocks linked to we find the above.

    OK? Phil Jones was using "readings" from station that weren't there, that's academic fraud. That's the academic equivalent of hiring Bernie Madoff as the school treasurer.

    There are three more in "ascending order of importance" but hard to imagine what's worse that the academic fraud
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,203
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,942
    Bernie Madoff once told the SEC to pound sand with their information requests; the data on all these so called "stocks" was readily available elsewhere.

    See, like Madoff, Phil Jones used phony data and also told investigators to take a hike
     

Share This Page