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?
