yesiree....

[Old Rocks]

The House of Commons Science and Technology Board has stated today that they have seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia or Phil Jones destroyed data or subverted the peer review process.

House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones Climate Progress

House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones
Based on their inquiry and evidence, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason ... to challenge the scientific consensus ... that 'global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity'."
March 30, 2010
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced….

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community….

Likewise 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.

 

[Truthmatters]

there are many deaf ears in the world that only hear and or remember what they wish to hear and remember.

 

[boedicca]

And this politicized process is surprising how?????

It's like having Henry Waxman investigate GAAP accounting...The House of Commons knows about as much about the scientific method.

 

[uscitizen]

The House of Commons Science and Technology Board has stated today that they have seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia or Phil Jones destroyed data or subverted the peer review process.

House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones Climate Progress

House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones
Based on their inquiry and evidence, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason ... to challenge the scientific consensus ... that 'global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity'."
March 30, 2010
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced….

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community….

Likewise 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.

this will not have any impact on the faith of many though.

 

[Nonelitist]

In other news....

The majority owner of General Motors, the United States Government, is investigating Toyota for safety violations.

 

[Nonelitist]

Tonight at 10!!

Tune in to Channel 666 for the breaking story about the landmark investigation by Acorn into possible illegalities by Acorn.

 

[gslack]

The House of Commons Science and Technology Board has stated today that they have seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia or Phil Jones destroyed data or subverted the peer review process.

House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones Climate Progress

House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones
Based on their inquiry and evidence, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason ... to challenge the scientific consensus ... that 'global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity'."
March 30, 2010
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced….

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community….

Likewise 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.

Nice bit of Bullsh_tting there buddy really nice..... Now want to tell us what site you got that from? No of course not, I will though... You got it from Climateprogress.org. a completely left wing progressive site... Their "about us" page

So we can safely say your choice of sources is in the very least biased.... Moving on to the story the article told.....

I went and followed your link and despite it being a biased source I gave it a look. I found 3 links in the article and followed each one. i noticed a pattern...

The first link was to a pdf document from the house of commons science and technology committee. The second and third were to a cbs news article and a timesonline UK article. Both of these say things a bit differently but in essence they back the story of the OP.... I said "in essence"... just wanted to clarify that before we go further...

The problem is the pdf report they based their stories on paints a bit different picture if you read it very carefully... They even quoted the pdf on the OP articles site, but the quotes were out of context. which gave the impression Dr. Jones was completely in the right. Well this was not the reality.

like the old saying goes; "the devil is in the details." well, here is the devil...

1. The article paints the impression that UEA and the CRU are separate entities. The reality is they are not separate entities by any measure. The full name; The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.... Yeah kinda says it all doesn't it.... The UEACRU...Nice....

2. The article uses this misconception to try and place blame on the UEA and exonerate the CRU. This is just a fallacy because the UEA is the University hosting the CRU, it is their creation. So any attempts to place blame on the UEA are in fact placing blame on the CRU...

3. The article, even the house of commons report tries to place blame on "climate research" and "climate science community".... Really? Well aren't they in fact one of the prime leaders in these fields and community? Yes they are and in fact many consider them one of the top members. So if the blame rests on "climate research" and "climate science community" then in reality the blame indeed does lie with Dr. Jones, the UEA and CRU... They are one of the leaders in their community, they do the research that others like oldrocks here likes to preach over....

4. The House of commons science and technology committee has a job to do. Their job according to their report....

The Science and Technology Committee
The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the
expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science. Under
arrangements agreed by the House on 25 June 2009 the Science and Technology Committee
was established on 1 October 2009 with the same membership and Chairman as the former
Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee and its proceedings were deemed to have
been in respect of the Science and Technology Committee.

Now we see their job is not to exonerate Mr. Jones at all. Their job is to "examine the
expenditure, administration and policy of the Government Office for Science".. Correct me If I am wrong but Dr. Jones and the UEACRU are not part of the Government Office for Science... So how are they able or why are they doing this? Simple, a scandal like this reflects bad on everyone... Even the people whose job it is to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen like the Government Office for Science... If they admit the problem they will be pointing the finger at themselves or their governing body, and they will not allow that.

This whole things is a PR snowjob start to finish... We have them trying to pretend the UEA and CRU are separate entities, that they do not make up the "climate research community", and that the house of commons science technology committee are the ones to make the decision over blame and fault on this....

Nice work man, you just showed the BS system at work... PR and save azz ing from politicians... Thanks anything else you want to do today?

 

[saveliberty]

Sounds like another classic "peer-review" in climate science. The public in England is less convinced of global warming as well. Soon their politicos will abandon the funding for these folks and move on to the next "crisis".

 

[Diuretic]

It was heartening to read this in the press. But I'm aware that this is a fairly light inquiry. There are a couple of heavier ones that are due to report fairly soon so I'll keep the champagne on ice for a while.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think that they will turn out the same. And we will see the same sour grapes greet their findings.

 

[Tom Clancy]

there are many deaf ears in the world that only hear and or remember what they wish to hear and remember.

Like you?

 

[konradv]

And this politicized process is surprising how?????
--------------------------

I agree. The deniers have been politicizing the process for a long time, since they know they've lost the scientific battle. Why all the talk about Gore and emails? So they don't have to talk about the science.

 

[California Girl]

Well, I never saw that coming. Gee, I am surprise that the government - who part funded the center, finds no evidence of wrong doing by said center.

Color me shocked pink.

 

[Si modo]

Well, there you have it. Politicians have ruled on the science and scientific integrity.

And Rocks thinks that is significant to the quality of the actual science and scientific integrity.



Libs hate science, obviously.

 

[gslack]

The OP was like something I saw on the television show "top gear"..

They test drove a new limited edition ultra powerful corvette. The thing was an awesome beast motor wise, but after a couple of days the plastic parts started to rattle and then it just stopped working altogether. They sent them another one and the plastic on the back end would rattle when bumped, and the same things happened within a day.

In the middle of this test drive/review they had a commercial from GM talking about quality. They even mentioned toyota and their situation...

How can they talk about quality? Cause they changed the meaning of it. How can the house of commons exonerate the CRU? They change the meaning of blame and guilt, then change the nature of who is who....

LOL love it when they use logic and reason in an illogical and unreasonable way....

 

[Truthmatters]

someday science may mean something to people again.

Until then political hackery replaces it.

 

[gslack]

someday science may mean something to people again.

Until then political hackery replaces it.

Yeah like the political hackery behind the OP.....

 

[Old Rocks]

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—“trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.”

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified

James Hoggan: Climate Scientist Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons

 

[Truthmatters]

The really sad thing is they dont care about any facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Facts are very inconveniant for those that would create their own reality from a nihilistic political philosophy.