Muir Russell admits he didn't ask Phil Jones if he deleted emails

[TyroneSlothrop]

No one was caught manipulating data...its a delusion..there were Six Investigations ...all of them cleared the Scientist ALL OF THEM

link to the six investigations

will do however I am confident you will simply declare "all the investigations are bogus" but you will not come up with any link or anyone credible who backs that up

Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

“[T]he 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. […] emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.” (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun)

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent inquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded"The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a reportfinding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in theclimatescience community".
3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the IndependentClimate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

at least one guy kept his integrity

"Climategate" Scientists Cleared of Wrongdoing - Again ...
it sure was not the ones who stole the E mails for sure

That is a link to an article about? It is not a link to investigations, an opinion expressed in an article is hardly factual or something suitable for discussion.

All you all do is express opinions link to anyone who is saying the Investigations were sham

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

"I found it with Google, it must be true"

I found it on some Right wing blog it just undoes any and all scientific research

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

No one was caught manipulating data...its a delusion..there were Six Investigations ...all of them cleared the Scientist ALL OF THEM

link to the six investigations

I did link LOL what now brown cow ...LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The problem is it is the "official" dogma that AGW is occuring. This review basically say's "yes you did bad, now don't do it like that again, understand!" Wink, wink. I love how the wording was "should" give more data so others can try to replicate work, instead of "must".

Giving them an out yet again. Lawyers and language, what a pair.

can you link to a credible source that says all the investigations were fake sham investigations "lawyers and language" investigations LOL.............
we need Right wing official dogma for real credibility.... scientist world wide have apparently sold out and have formed a conspiratorial wall, of fake science to take over the world ..

me : where is the proof of that

You all: proof proof we don't need no stinking proof

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

at least one guy kept his integrity

"Climategate" Scientists Cleared of Wrongdoing - Again ...
it sure was not the ones who stole the E mails for sure

That is a link to an article about? It is not a link to investigations, an opinion expressed in an article is hardly factual or something suitable for discussion.

throughout that article are links to what is being talked about ...follow those links

by the way I am out of here ..."my mom did not raise a fool"

 

[elektra]

throughout that article are links to what is being talked about ...follow those links

by the way I am out of here ..."my mom did not raise a fool"

Why not just link directly to what you claim is an investigation into the emails. I guess if you can not support your post, it is best to get out of here, instead of staying and being a fool.

 

[elektra]

No one was caught manipulating data...its a delusion..there were Six Investigations ...all of them cleared the Scientist ALL OF THEM

link to the six investigations

will do however I am confident you will simply declare "all the investigations are bogus" but you will not come up with any link or anyone credible who backs that up

Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

“[T]he 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. […] emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.” (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun)

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent inquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded"The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a reportfinding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in theclimatescience community".
3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the IndependentClimate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.

Michael Mann? He was simply a small part of Climategate, hardly can you use the inquiry of his peers which found no fault with Michael Mann, as evidence that there was no wrong doing at the IPCC.

An inquiry by Michael Mann's peers is hardly an investigation

 

[IanC]

these inquiries were a long time ago, and it is hard to overstate just how willing the govts, universities, and media were to look the other way with toothless whitewashes.

Jones's email to delete the AR4 correspondence is prima facia evidence of conspiracy to avoid the freedom of information act. no one asked Jones if he wrote the email or deleted his own. after the inquiries Briffa admitted that he put his cache of documents on a memory stick and 'took them home for safekeeping'. Wahl admitted to deleting his, after Mann forwarded Jones' email. when asked why he never told anyone that he had deleted the emails, Wahl replied simply, "no one ever asked me before". Penn asked Mann, and he said no. they never bothered to check to see if they were there, or had been removed and replaced.

to say that the inquiries fully investigated and exonerated these scientists is a total fiction. there are many other deficiencies that I could bring up again, but this particular one is surely enough to to put grave doubts on the effectiveness of science investigating itself with no outside advice.

 

[mamooth]

That made no sense at all, unless you already believe in the conspiracy.

I know it made sense to you, and to those also in the conspiracy bubble, being you understand the secret conspiracy code words. However, everyone else looks at it and says "so?", being that it was meaningless paranoid rambling.

 

[westwall]

The problem is it is the "official" dogma that AGW is occuring. This review basically say's "yes you did bad, now don't do it like that again, understand!" Wink, wink. I love how the wording was "should" give more data so others can try to replicate work, instead of "must".

Giving them an out yet again. Lawyers and language, what a pair.

can you link to a credible source that says all the investigations were fake sham investigations "lawyers and language" investigations LOL.............
we need Right wing official dogma for real credibility.... scientist world wide have apparently sold out and have formed a conspiratorial wall, of fake science to take over the world ..

me : where is the proof of that

You all: proof proof we don't need no stinking proof

Every single "investigation" was run by people who were personally invested monetarily in maintaining the scam. EVERY single one of them. This is well known. I suggest you doe some reading so you can catsh up with the rest of us.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Every single "investigation" was run by people who were personally invested monetarily in maintaining the scam. EVERY single one of them. This is well known. I suggest you doe some reading so you can catsh up with the rest of us.

that means you have proven that the investigations are corrupt ? apparently only folks from Big oil or being paid by Big oil and other vested interest are true to Science and are moral and integral ...everyone else .,corrupt..the best thing is all you all have to do is declare that this is so and everyone has to accept it like it came from God...LOL No documentation, no proof , no specific charges aimed at specific people ,no nothing LOL

 

[westwall]

Every single "investigation" was run by people who were personally invested monetarily in maintaining the scam. EVERY single one of them. This is well known. I suggest you doe some reading so you can catsh up with the rest of us.

that means you have proven that the investigations are corrupt ? apparently only folks from Big oil or being paid by Big oil and other vested interest are true to Science and are moral and integral ...everyone else .,corrupt..the best thing is all you all have to do is declare that this is so and everyone has to accept it like it came from God...LOL No documentation, no proof , no specific charges aimed at specific people ,no nothing LOL

It's called a "CONFLICT OF INTEREST". Funny isn't it, how you would scream to high heaven if a oil company investigated itself over an oil spill lets say, but completely ignore the exact same corrupt behavior when it is a group you support. Intellectually honest people condemn corruption no matter who is committing it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

It's called a "CONFLICT OF INTEREST". Funny isn't it, how you would scream to high heaven if a oil company investigated itself over an oil spill lets say, but completely ignore the exact same corrupt behavior when it is a group you support. Intellectually honest people condemn corruption no matter who is committing it.

Can you provide a roster of Scientist who do not have conflict of interest who are more pure than the ones at NASA , NOAA the various national Meteorology Bureaus..those as you allege are all Conflict of Interest folks ...please I want to be able to have the real the pure the scientific real deal
please list them in any order ...

 

[westwall]

It's called a "CONFLICT OF INTEREST". Funny isn't it, how you would scream to high heaven if a oil company investigated itself over an oil spill lets say, but completely ignore the exact same corrupt behavior when it is a group you support. Intellectually honest people condemn corruption no matter who is committing it.

Can you provide a roster of Scientist who do not have conflict of iterest ho are more pure than the ones at NASA , NOAA the various national Metereology Bureaus..they are all Conflict of Interest folks ...please I want to be able to have the real the pure the scientific real deal
please list them in any order ...

Hmmmm, let's see. It is a small group of scientists who are pushing the agenda. I suggest you just do a simple search of their names and then look at the companies they either own or sit on the boards of directors. Then cross reference what it is that the companies produce and how specific laws will benefit them. That's how a thinking person does it. I will let you do your own research because you automatically assume I am lying to you. So, you do the work, and report back on what you find.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Hmmmm, let's see. It is a small group of scientists who are pushing the agenda. I suggest you just do a simple search of their names and then look at the companies they either own or sit on the boards of directors. Then cross reference what it is that the companies produce and how specific laws will benefit them. That's how a thinking person does it. I will let you do your own research because you automatically assume I am lying to you. So, you do the work, and report back on what you find.

I thought I could get a short cut to the brave and the honest Scientific folks who do not sell out and are the real deal ....like the English major guy ...who has a sideline as a Climate expert in spite of his declaration he has no time to read peer reviewed papers...