yesiree....

[saveliberty]

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

Bucking for the foreward on Al's next book? Your just not registering on my gave a crap meter today. Maybe Tomorrow.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. But you bothered to reply.

 

[Old Rocks]

Altogether, a pretty damning report on the deniars ethics in the way they have presented their "evidence".

Scout.com: Oops: Phil Jones Exonerated

The committee’s chair, Phil Willis, Member of Parliament (MP), said in a press conference:

We do believe that Prof Jones has in many ways been scapegoated as a result of what really was a frustration on his part that people were asking for information purely to undermine his research.

..........................................................................................................

It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process. In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow verification.

...........................................................................................................................

On the matter of the “repeatability and verification” of CRU’s temperature work, the Committee found:

We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The fact that all the datasets show broadly the same sort of course of instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth century compared to today was why Professor John Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, had the confidence to say that human-induced global warming was, in terms of the evidence to support that hypothesis, “unchallengeable”

 

[konradv]

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

I hope you're talking about the AGW deniers. They don't care about facts. Their agenda is totally political.

 

[Si modo]

Politicians tell Rocks what science is and what scientific integrity is.

Too funny.

 

[gslack]

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

Quick question to clear all this up..

The UEA is University of East Anglia, and the CRU is Climate Research Unit, the UEA is the University hosting the CRU, the CRU scientists work for the UEA and the CRU is part of the UEA. SO why do they try and make it seem like they are separate entities?

Come on buddy answer it.....

 

[Tom Clancy]

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

Truthmatters, go ahead, enlighten us with the "Truth".

 

[Charles Stucker]

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

And if you asked Alexander the Great if he was a barbarian he would have said NO

Modern readers are often shocked at his destruction of Tyre, yet that was the fate in store for any city which resisted his army. Total annihilation.

but Alexander was no barbarian, just ask him for his opinion.

In case you missed the point this is exactly the same as a "peer review" process being vetted by "peer review"

 

[skookerasbil]

yup.........and we're all sure that the masses will be searching the nether-regions of the internet to find this information tonight!!!


Rocks.........you still dont get it s0n. You think you are going to influence people from this internet black hole............The USMessageBoard..........environmental forum that about 12 people visit each month. I stop in here for a cup of coffee a couple of times a month and I see the same exact post I saw from the k00ks like you last month.........6 months ago...............a year ago.

Your post is the equivilent of a sportscaster way down the end of the AM dial giving the home run stats of a Double A minor league baseball player...........like maybe 43 people will find out about it. The e-mails? That was like Hank Aaron's 715th homerun back in 1974.

Trust me s0n..........maybe 219 people will have heard about the ruling by the Parliament in the UK ( Im too tired to post up one of my gay MSPaint Photobucket pwnage classics!!!)



By the way ROCKS..........people arent dummies. They look up at your "JOIN" date and see youve been here for about a year and a half and have damn near 9,000 posts...............virtually ALL in this forum!!! Trust me...........it screams "ENVIRONMENTAL K00K!!!!"

 

[Meister]

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.

An interesting choice of a word, UScitizen.

 

[elvis]

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.

An interesting choice of a word, UScitizen.

indeed.

 

[manu1959]

good for phil....did they find the data?