- Thread starter
- #41
your link to ICCER is very revealing to the whole problem of climate science.
I remembered there had been a flap at the time about the choices, with at least one pick quickly excusing himself for bias. Another, Geoffrey Boulton, worked for UEA for 18 years in environmental sciences and had publicly spoken out about the emails!
anyways, I digress. Trakar- do you know the timelines involved of the various papers submitted for IPCC AR4 in an attempt to keep the Hockey Stick? that is what a lot of climategate is about and where the obvious problems are, including the emails that were/were not deleted in a coverup. here is the story and time line. it doesnt go into a lot of the technical stuff, just facts and figures on what was and wasnt published in which journals and when, with respect to IPCC protocols. - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper
It is odd that you don't think probing into the dark corners would have been useful. time and again the statements coming from UEA and the climategate principals have been shown to be false or misdirectional. Certainly Stringer found out with the HP inquiries that they were very hard to pin down and that their stories of plausible deniability are hard to push through without time and inclination to get to the truth.
The Review team
The Independent Climate Change Email Review is being conducted by an expert team, led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE. The Review team has more than 100 years’ collective expertise of scientific research methodology and a wide range of scientific backgrounds.
None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More information about each of the review team members can be found in the Biographies section.
I remembered there had been a flap at the time about the choices, with at least one pick quickly excusing himself for bias. Another, Geoffrey Boulton, worked for UEA for 18 years in environmental sciences and had publicly spoken out about the emails!
from Climategate: the official cover-up continues – Telegraph BlogsHe notes that Professor Boulton….
spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team
says the argument over climate change is over
tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change
believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050
signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity
could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger
is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate.
anyways, I digress. Trakar- do you know the timelines involved of the various papers submitted for IPCC AR4 in an attempt to keep the Hockey Stick? that is what a lot of climategate is about and where the obvious problems are, including the emails that were/were not deleted in a coverup. here is the story and time line. it doesnt go into a lot of the technical stuff, just facts and figures on what was and wasnt published in which journals and when, with respect to IPCC protocols. - Bishop Hill blog - Caspar and the Jesus paper
do you think it is reasonable that neither of the english inquiries took testimony from witnesses who were in any way adversarial to UEA?
And you perceive this as relevent to the scope and nature of the investigations how?
It is odd that you don't think probing into the dark corners would have been useful. time and again the statements coming from UEA and the climategate principals have been shown to be false or misdirectional. Certainly Stringer found out with the HP inquiries that they were very hard to pin down and that their stories of plausible deniability are hard to push through without time and inclination to get to the truth.