A ruling FAR more important that the Muir "investigation"

[westwall]

It seems that from now on the CRU and any other EU and hopefully US based organization will in the future HAVE to release their data for proper peer review. A victory for the good guys!

Information Commissioner's decision on one of the climate data FoI requests | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, they did. They did not see why they should waste their time when the information was freely available.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, they did. They did not see why they should waste their time when the information was freely available.

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, and from now on they will. Probably hire a clerk just for this purpose, more money wasted by the denialists.

 

[Big Fitz]

It seems that from now on the CRU and any other EU and hopefully US based organization will in the future HAVE to release their data for proper peer review. A victory for the good guys!

Information Commissioner's decision on one of the climate data FoI requests | Environment | guardian.co.uk

SWEEET! No more incestuous peer review.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, they did. They did not see why they should waste their time when the information was freely available.

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

"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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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