GW..Science or literature?

[westwall]

I found it astounding that when being interviewed by a reporter Lord Oxburgh said of Keith Briffa that even he (Keith) couldn't reproduce his own results!

If ever there was overwhelming evidence that climatology (as practiced by the lead protagonists of AGW "theory") was truly on the same level as palmistry and phrenology (only less useful-thanks Frank!) this was it.

Amazing!

'Is this science, or literature?' ? The Register

 

[IanC]

I found it astounding that when being interviewed by a reporter Lord Oxburgh said of Keith Briffa that even he (Keith) couldn't reproduce his own results!

If ever there was overwhelming evidence that climatology (as practiced by the lead protagonists of AGW "theory") was truly on the same level as palmistry and phrenology (only less useful-thanks Frank!) this was it.

Amazing!

'Is this science, or literature?' ? The Register

Thanks, great article! I particularly liked the graph which showed that high altitude temps are totally out of whack with the models. CO2 is supposed to have the greatest effect above the clouds but the actual evidence is not there. You would think that anomaly would lead the AGW alarmists to have some doubts about their modelling but apparently not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, well, so the total exoneration of Jones, Mann, and the climatologists still has your tails in a knot.

There was a man named McCarthy, otherwise known as 'Tail Gunner Joe' that would be a real model for you fellows if you were old enough to remember him.

 

[IanC]

Well, well, so the total exoneration of Jones, Mann, and the climatologists still has your tails in a knot.

There was a man named McCarthy, otherwise known as 'Tail Gunner Joe' that would be a real model for you fellows if you were old enough to remember him.

Total exoneration? Hardly!

Why do you think the british parliament is now doing an inquiry into the inquiries? Hint: its not because they did such a good job in the first place. I suppose you think shoddy work and prevarications are OK as long as it supports the AGW elite.
What do you have against honest questions answered honestly?

 

[Old Rocks]

I think that you have as many paid off by the energy companies there as here.

 

[IanC]

I think that you have as many paid off by the energy companies there as here.

What do energy companies have to do with Oxburgh's lies to the commitee? Don't you care about integrity?

 

[daveman]

Well, well, so the total exoneration of Jones, Mann, and the climatologists still has your tails in a knot.

And if Nixon had been in charge of the Watergate investigation, he wouldn't have found any wrongdoing, either.

 

[IanC]

Well, well, so the total exoneration of Jones, Mann, and the climatologists still has your tails in a knot.

And if Nixon had been in charge of the Watergate investigation, he wouldn't have found any wrongdoing, either.

You are correct daveman. Oxburgh was supposed to look into the science behind the climategate problems. He then publicly stated that the work of these scientists was peer reviewed and that was good enough for him. As far as the short list of studies that they look at, it appears that UEA chose them and Oxburgh emailed two of his friends at the Royal Society to rubberstamp the selection after the fact. The list itself included only papers that were not involved with the scandal. Oxburgh apparently arrived at the inquiry with the results already written up because it took less than 2 days to interview the 'defendants', discuss the findings and write the Report. If that doesn't sound like a whitewash I don't know what would.

 

[daveman]

Well, well, so the total exoneration of Jones, Mann, and the climatologists still has your tails in a knot.

And if Nixon had been in charge of the Watergate investigation, he wouldn't have found any wrongdoing, either.

You are correct daveman. Oxburgh was supposed to look into the science behind the climategate problems. He then publicly stated that the work of these scientists was peer reviewed and that was good enough for him. As far as the short list of studies that they look at, it appears that UEA chose them and Oxburgh emailed two of his friends at the Royal Society to rubberstamp the selection after the fact. The list itself included only papers that were not involved with the scandal. Oxburgh apparently arrived at the inquiry with the results already written up because it took less than 2 days to interview the 'defendants', discuss the findings and write the Report. If that doesn't sound like a whitewash I don't know what would.

Indeed. But to the faithful, it's Holy Writ.

 

[IanC]

I think it has come as an awful shock to the AGW elite that they can no longer ignore and marginalize the dissenters that are calling for answers to difficult questions. If they had been forthright from the beginning we wouldn't be in this 'climate of catastrophe' in the first place.

 

[IanC]

Well, well, so the total exoneration of Jones, Mann, and the climatologists still has your tails in a knot.

There was a man named McCarthy, otherwise known as 'Tail Gunner Joe' that would be a real model for you fellows if you were old enough to remember him.

I realize most of the people browsing this forum are not particularly interested in climategate and the aftermath. But for those that are here is a pdf of the chronology of the problems it presented and way in which they were investigated. It is biased by the view of the writer who was involved in many of the controversies but the questions raised are legitimate and need to be answered so that the reputation of climate science can be rehabilitated.

As of 30 August 2010 all five had issued their reports. The overall impression that has been created is that the scientists and their work were vindicated. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair Rajendra Pachauri declared in a recent interview1

“the doubts raised have proved to be unfounded.”

Considerable reliance is being placed upon the outcome of these investigations. As I will
show, for the most part the inquiries were flawed, but where they actually functioned as proper inquiries, they upheld many criticisms. But a surprising number of issues were sidestepped or handled inadequately. The world still awaits a proper inquiry into climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it clearly leads.

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf

 

[westwall]

I think that you have as many paid off by the energy companies there as here.

If you can't reproduce your OWN work it's not science.

 

[IanC]

Well, well, so the total exoneration of Jones, Mann, and the climatologists still has your tails in a knot.

There was a man named McCarthy, otherwise known as 'Tail Gunner Joe' that would be a real model for you fellows if you were old enough to remember him.

One of the glaring inconsistentcies of the Oxburgh Investigation into the 'science' of Climategate was the choice of scientific papers to be looked at. Eleven were selected, supposedly under the auspices of the Royal Academy, but they did not include any that were directly named in the scandal. When the climate science outsiders demanded to know who and how the list was written, they were stonewalled. The list originated before the Royal Society was asked to rubberstamp it. Very odd.

Finally the answer, forced by FOIA requests, is out.

In a recent post, I observed that the list of eleven publications was sent out as early as March 4 – well before a perfunctory email from Trevor Davies to Martin Rees and Brian Hoskins of the Royal Society on March 12 saying that Oxburgh wanted to be able to say that the list had been chosen “in consultation with the Royal Society”, even though the list had already been sent out.

I recently noticed that Lisa Williams of the UEA Registrar’s Office was shown as the author of the list version sent to panelists – thereby offering a lead towards solving the authorship of the list, which was accompanied by the statement:

These key publications have been selected because of their pertinence to the specific criticisms which have been levelled against CRU’s research findings as a result of the theft of emails.
Today – after almost six months – the riddle of who prepared the list is resolved.
Lisa Williams wrote:

Dear Mr McIntyre
In response to your recent enquiry I can provide the following information.

I understand that the list of 11 papers for the Oxburgh review was collated by Prof Trevor Davies, in consultation with others. He was also the author of the statement at the bottom of the list.

Yours sincerely,
Lisa Williams
So the list was not selected by the Royal Society after all, but by Trevor Davies, the pro-VC of the University and former director of CRU. In consultation with “others”. Dare one hypothesize that these mysterious “others” will turn out to be Jones and Briffa after all?

As has been the case in almost all aspects of the climategate inquiries, the lead investigators have been the very people who are being investigated.

But you keep thinking that your heros have been 'completely exonerated' Old Rocks.

for more info on climatgate and climate science in general, visit http://climateaudit.org/

 

[Mr Natural]

The water in the Long Island Sound hit 80 degrees this summer.

I've never in my 40+ years of boating have seen it that warm.

Just sayin' . . .

 

[Charles_Main]

The water in the Long Island Sound hit 80 degrees this summer.

I've never in my 40+ years of boating have seen it that warm.

Just sayin' . . .

Localized events are not proof that man is the leading cause of GW.


Just saying.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hardly a local event. Here is some information from NASA.

SVS Animation 3674 - Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1881 to 2009

 

[westwall]

Hardly a local event. Here is some information from NASA.

SVS Animation 3674 - Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1881 to 2009

You mean those satellites that are in error reading 15 degrees higher?

 

[IanC]

New Zealand raw temperature data turns into something else after unexplained (don't bother me, I am much to busy and too important to answer your questions) adjustments are made.

 

[IanC]

this raw data for northern Austrailia becomes this in IPCC AR4

and of course there is Darwin airport in Australia

hmmm, -0.7 cooling adjusted to 1.2 warming is a fudge factor of 1.9 degrees Celsius. How much has the earth warmed again?

 

[IanC]

someone decided to check out his hometown

NCDC adjusts it

then NASA GISS takes their turn

are you AGW alarmists starting to get the picture of why people are becoming more and more skeptical of the settled science and consensus?