Wonderful News on Climate Change!

posted at 9:30 am on July 8, 2010 by Dafydd ab Hugh

Remember the University of East Anglia (UEA), whose Climate Research Unit (UEA-CRU) was the subject of “intense media scrutiny,” after e-mails filched from its server disclosed numerous violations of basic science and simple honesty in the debate over global warming? The e-mails appeared to show such obviously fraudulent or extortive practices as secretly switching measuring methods in the middle of an experiment, burying data that conflicted with their hypothesis, and behind-the-scenes pressuring of scientific journals to prevent publication by globaloney skeptics, no matter how well conducted the science.

In order to investigate the scandal, the UEA set up and paid for a blue-ribbon panel, the Independent Climate Change E-Mail Inquiry; the university investigated itself, and discovered itself and the UEA-CRU to be blameless, or at least innocent of any serious breach:

A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.

But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files backing up their scientific work. And it declared that a that graph they produced in 1999 about climate in the past was “misleading” and should have contained caveats….

The university solicited and paid for the new report….

“On the specific allegations made against the behavior of CRU scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” said the new review, led by Muir Russell, a retired British civil servant and educator.

You can find the final report here.

Independent Inquiry head Sir Alastair Muir Russell is a Scottish career civil servant; the Scottish government is, if anything, even more enthusiastic about global warming than the British government. But I’m sure a politician would never allow political considerations to cloud his scientific judgment.

His team comprised the following:

  • Geoffrey Boulton is a Scottish climatologist whose field of study actually appears to be the science of chairing committees — he chairs or is a member of thirteen committees, councils, or royal societies. Oh, and “[h]e leads the Global Change Research Group in the University of Edinburgh, the largest major research group in the University’s School of Geosciences.” But surely he wouldn’t allow his deep professional commitment to global climate change research to bias his findings.
  • Professor Peter Clarke is a physics professor whose CV includes nothing to do with climate change; but I’m sure he has considered himself a quiet expert in the field, ever since he first read the original report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  • David Eyton is an engineer with British Petroleum, the Group Head of Research and Technology (R&T). He, too, appears to have no background in climate change research. BP, of course, like every other oil company, is very heavily invested in climate change and expects that some form of carbon-trading commodities market will prove to be a glory hole for the entire industry. Though certainly, Mr. Eyton would never allow himself to be influenced by such crass commercial concerns.
  • Finally, we have the Jack of All Trades, Professor Jim Norton. He is — well, I suppose I’d better just let Professor Norton tell his own tale (I presume he wrote his own CV):

    Aged fifty-seven, Jim Norton is an independent director and policy adviser. He is an external member of the Board of the UK Parliament’s Office of Science & Technology (POST) and council member of the Parliamentary IT Committee (PITCOM). Jim is a Non-Executive Director of F&C Capital & Income Investment Trust plc, where he chairs the Audit & Management Engagement Committee. He is a Board Member and Trustee of the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR), as well as a member of the ‘Electronic Communications Expert Advisory Panel’ for the Irish Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). Jim chairs the Steering Group for the Secure Software Development Partnership (SSDP) of the Technology Strategy Board.

    He was a founder member of the Cabinet Office Performance & Innovation Unit in 1999, a former Chief Executive of the DTI Radiocommunications Agency (the UK’s radio spectrum manager 1993-1998) and has held senior positions in Cable & Wireless (Marketing Director C&W Europe 1990-1993), Butler-Cox (Director Vendor Consulting Practice 1987-1990), and British Telecom (Senior Manager International Business Development).

    Jim is a Visiting Professor of Electronic Engineering at Sheffield University and an Honorary Doctor of Engineering of that University. He is an External Examiner for the IoD Certificate in Company Direction’. Jim is a Chartered IT Professional and Fellow of the British Computer Society (BCS), where he is chair of the ‘Professionalism Board’ and is a Vice President and Trustee. He is a Chartered Engineer, Fellow of the Institution of Engineering & Technology (IET) and is Chairman of the IET IT Sector Panel. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts, Commerce and Manufactures and of the Institute of Directors. Jim holds the Diploma in Company Direction from the Institute of Directors and is a Chartered Director.

    I can’t imagine how Professor Norton forgot to add “devilishly handsome, dashing, and terminally narcissistic.” In any event, his expertise in climate change should be clear: He is obviously an expert in everything, like the professor in Giligan’s Island.

In any event, one can see that global-warming skeptics were well represented on the Independent Inquiry; so that final report should settle the matter once and for all and be the final word.

Except… the Independent Climate Change E-Mail Inquiry affair gives me the opportunity to repeat, for the eleventy-first time, my favorite quotation from one of my favorite writers, the late, great Robert Anton Wilson (channeling Lemuel Gulliver):

And so… these Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.

I look forward to several more such definitive investigations, wherein the accused examines himself deeply in the mirror — and really, really likes what he sees.

Cross-posted on Big Lizards

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wow that’s reat news. For a minute I thought the science was rigged.

dirtseller on July 8, 2010 at 9:32 AM

In related news, Obama investigated the Obama administration and found all claims of corruption to be false.

Daggett on July 8, 2010 at 9:33 AM

reat=great

dirtseller on July 8, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Before taking on long term climate change, how about taking on short term Gulf of Mexico changes? Winston Groom, the writer of Forrest Gump and Gulf resident, lets loose:

There are approximately 2,000 skimmer craft in the U.S., some large, some small. At present, more than two months after the leak from Deepwater Horizon began, just 400 of these are located in Gulf Coast waters.

Where are the other 1,600? They are tied up from New York to Alaska and points along the way by federal regulations that confine them to areas that might have an oil spill.
The Dutch, Norwegians and other nations have massive oil-skimming ships that could deal with that 30-mile-long spill in short order. But because they only capture 96 percent of the oil they skim up and process, and put 4 percent back into the water, they are forbidden by federal EPA regulations to skim up oil slicks such as those headed for our shores.

Instead, BP is forced to fight the slicks with dispersants that leave 100 percent of the oil still in the water. But that’s OK with the EPA and the clowns in Washington.
Recently, we were informed by the Press-Register that an oil slick in Mobile Bay could not be skimmed because the owners of the nearly 200 private boats working for BP out of Dog River and Fairhope had not passed an OSHA test for oil handling required by government regulation.

For two months, 13 oil-producing countries plus the United Nations have offered to send us their huge oil-skimming tankers and other vessels that can collect a thousand times the amount of oil that the shrimp boats or barges, let alone small outboard boats we are currently using, can collect.

But the Obama administration has dragged its feet on accepting these generous offers because of a labor-union law called the Jones Act that permits only U.S.-built ships crewed by U.S. seamen to operate in U.S. waters. Finally, on Tuesday, the State Department said it was “working out the particulars” of accepting the help.

H/T: Southern Appeal

Mr. Joe on July 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM

And I think the the Attorney General should investigate this latest voting rights scandal at the Department of Justice!

Disturb the Universe on July 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM

This panel had as much climatology experience as Obama’s offshore drilling commission has engineering experience.

And both were set up with a particular political agenda to advance.

Wethal on July 8, 2010 at 9:39 AM

And Sharpton reviewed the Black Panther case and found no wrong doing.

artist on July 8, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Wonderful post, as is usually the case from Dafydd Ab Hugh. Has anyone else noticed that the Man caused climate change religious devotion has diminished around the web, and by a lot? It’s unusual now to find the acotytes hanging around proselytizing prospective converts. I wonder if this scandal has caused the true believers to think twice…

MTF on July 8, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Doctor groups investigate doctor malpractice; politicians, police, teachers and lawyers do the same re self-investigation.

Strangely enough, these investigatory bodies rarely find misconduct. There could be some kind of trend here.

GnuBreed on July 8, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Maybe Obowma would like to instruct the Gulf waters to round up the oil and deposit it onshore in tanks.

This is so silly it will end science as we know it. What do they think, people can’t read, or are they depending on the tried and true liberal axiom, people don’t read.

tarpon on July 8, 2010 at 9:55 AM

OK, where’s the orignial data? I hate this global warming stuff. You should be able to see it and test it it over and over again. It’s basic science.

Why isn’t that making more news.

Oil Can on July 8, 2010 at 9:55 AM

This “blue-ribbon panel” sounds like the highly political (not scientific) UN IPCC group that wrote its alarmist report.

Wethal: Did you see that the feds are challenging the findings of the federal judge who said that the six-month moratorium on off-shore drilling has no basis? The feds are now tying up the decision in the Fifth Circuit court, I believe.

onlineanalyst on July 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM

I bet their paid investigators also found them to quite charming and devilishly attractive, in addition to being men of towering intellects and unimpeachable integrity.

abobo on July 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM

But the panel also rebuked the scientists for several aspects of their behavior, especially their reluctance to release computer files backing up their scientific work.

In other words, “you screwed up, you got caught. Be more careful in the future.”

rbj on July 8, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Isn’t it interesting that this subject suddenly crops up during the Hottest part of the year?

Chip on July 8, 2010 at 9:59 AM

…and they also traveled fifty years forward in time, and back–using some exciting prototype technology that they can’t talk about, for legal reasons–and they’ve absolutely confirmed that they were right about everything. So there!

RBMN on July 8, 2010 at 10:00 AM

I understand the thermal nuclear activity inside Al Gore’s pants is increasing at an alarming rate .

DeweyWins on July 8, 2010 at 10:00 AM

This is like a commisson of of foxes concluding there is no danger in letting foxes in the henhouse.

tommyboy on July 8, 2010 at 10:00 AM

The e-mails appeared to show showed obviously fraudulent or extortive practices as secretly switching measuring methods

Not to mention the software they wrote to “adjust” the data to more convenient values.

This investigative body may apply white wash to the CRU’s FRAUD but it still stinks like a skunk.

dogsoldier on July 8, 2010 at 10:01 AM

I understand the thermal nuclear activity inside Al Gore’s pants is increasing at an alarming rate .

DeweyWins on July 8, 2010 at 10:00 AM

If he releases his second chakra in the Gulf, it could seal the oil leak.

Disturb the Universe on July 8, 2010 at 10:02 AM

“…their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt…” if we hide the decline, of course.

cartooner on July 8, 2010 at 10:09 AM

HIDE THE DECLINE

HIDE THE DECLINE

HIDE THE DECLINE

HIDE THE DECLINE

HIDE THE DECLINE

HIDE THE DECLINE

SDarchitect on July 8, 2010 at 10:10 AM

They didn’t do anything wrong …..

A British panel on Wednesday exonerated the scientists caught up in the controversy known as Climategate of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.

Except this, found in following paragraph …..

And it declared that a that graph they produced in 1999 about climate in the past was “misleading” and should have contained caveats….

Huh?

They aren’t even good liars. (Or proof readers)

fogw on July 8, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Everything was on the up-an-up, which is why they fought tooth and nail against UK FOI requests, conspired to blacklist their academic rivals, and blocked every effort to get their data or e-mails. Like most natural science, it’s top secret.

Wait.

This is a multi-trillion dollar scam invested with the dreams of an entire generation of Red Diaper Babies. They’re not giving up without a fight.

Beagle on July 8, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Now, now. There’s no need to be derisive about Professor Norton’s being a “Jack of all Trades”. It looks like he’s been very active in Information Technology. That’s what a resume can look like after 30 years or so energetically devoted to a field of study.

At the same time, it strikes me as similar to having an automotive engineer in volved in a bank robbery investigation because the perps used a car to escape.

dts-01 on July 8, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Looks like UEA used the same due diligence in this investigation that they did in their exhaustive research into AGW.
As with AGW, the matter is now SETTLED.

edgehead on July 8, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Finally, we have the Jack of All Trades, Professor Jim Norton.

Professor Jim Norton wears lots of hats, but all his self-proclaimed areas of expertise are in communications and information technology. How does that qualify him to determine whether weather data was fudged? Couldn’t anyone put some independent METEOROLOGISTS on the panel?

And it declared that a that graph they produced in 1999 about climate in the past was “misleading” and should have contained caveats….

Might this be the hockey stick graph? Could they have forgotten the teensy-weensy little “caveat” that shortly after the graph switched from “proxy data” to thermometer data, the “proxy” temperatures were decreasing and real temperatures were increasing? How can anyone trust the “proxy” temperatures further in the past if they point in the wrong direction?

Steve Z on July 8, 2010 at 10:26 AM

UK + Climate Change + Islam = DOOM

Hening on July 8, 2010 at 10:29 AM

And so… these Learned Men, having Inquir’d into the Case for the Opposition, discover’d that the Opposition had no Case and were Devoid of Merit, which was what they Suspected all along, and they arriv’d at this Happy Conclusion by the most Economical and Nice of all Methods of Enquiry, which was that they did not Invite the Opposition to confuse Matters by Participating in the Discussion.

Where has this quote been?
Obama-care, global warming, bail-out, immigration, college campus speakers…this is the dems mantra, this quote fits them perfectly.

right2bright on July 8, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Nothing to see here….move on….move on.

GarandFan on July 8, 2010 at 10:30 AM

UK + Climate Change + Islam = DOOM

Hening on July 8, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Anything + Islam = DOOM

Disturb the Universe on July 8, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Professor Peter Clarke is a physics professor whose CV includes nothing to do with climate change; but I’m sure he has considered himself a quiet expert in the field, ever since he first read the original report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Why in the world do you care about qualifications? You’ve never given any merit to qualifications of the scientists involved in global warming research. As soon as someone points out that over 90% of the most respected scientists- climate research and otherwise- at every major research university in the USA (MIT, CalTech, Michigan, Stanford) and NASA- strongly agree with the overall body of science behind global warming theory, you immediately say that all the ‘experts’ are wrong. Or claim that you’re able to assess the experts’ scientific work and invalidate it.

It’s interesting to hear you suddenly say that you’re concerned by the qualifications of the scientists involved in any aspect of global warming research.

bayam on July 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Reminds me of when CNN gets five reporters together to review their recent performance and they discover that they did pretty well, over all.

SurferDoc on July 8, 2010 at 10:55 AM

What the Global Warning experts are 100% accurate about is that there is no money in the debunking case.

SurferDoc on July 8, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Exonerated themselves?

Captain Renault Award® of the Day.

MassVictim on July 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Loon weasels guarding the chicken little/hen house bank.

Speakup on July 8, 2010 at 11:14 AM

I’m so disappointed that Professor Irwin Corey did not participate on the panel. As if the conclusions we not ludicrous enough!
.
But seriously, I digress! The Foremost Authority deals with serious inquiries in just such a comical process! Anyone could get more information and laughter as well from the lefty liberal Prof. Irwin Corey’s “Learned Lecturer” shtick as from these clowns.
.
My word, the state of English academia and political will is just dreary! I’m sure the entire panel comforted each other with the notion that “no one will question our process or motives, nor our politics, in these results!” Sad, sad, sad! Hilarious, too, that they thought we wouldn’t notice!

ExpressoBold on July 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Five independent investigation have discovered no evidence of scientific fraud (although some bad behavior and lack of transparency). How many more will it take?

Hal_10000 on July 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM

I can’t imagine how Professor Norton forgot to add “devilishly handsome, dashing, and terminally narcissistic.” In any event, his expertise in climate change should be clear: He is obviously an expert in everything, like the professor in Giligan’s Island MacGyver.

His vast array of accomplishments using only the cap of a ballpoint pen, a wad of used chewing gum, a paper clip and a butane lighter are the stuff of legend!

ya2daup on July 8, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Personally, the panel would have had more validity if it had replaced Professor Jim Norton with Comedian Jim Norton.

thirtypundit on July 8, 2010 at 11:28 AM

When “researchers” cannot or will not provide their raw data or details of their methods, their results must be held as suspect. If in addition they engage in gagging efforts against any who express other opinions, it reinforces the suspicion that their conclusions do not bear serious scrutiny.

This investigation does not address these concerns and thus does not resurrect credibility for the East Anglia “researchers” conclusions.

KW64 on July 8, 2010 at 11:29 AM

It’s interesting to hear you suddenly say that you’re concerned by the qualifications of the scientists involved in any aspect of global warming research.

bayam on July 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM

It’s not their qualifications or CVs at issue here, it’s the absence of persons as members of the board who would be more inclined to question the “… rigor and honesty …” of the scientists at UEA-CRU. This was purely and simply a rubber-stamp inquiry with a fore-ordained conclusion.

ya2daup on July 8, 2010 at 11:33 AM

Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Helen Thomas .. now Octavia Nasr

It’s Global Warming I tell you …

If you look at this by example, it’s pretty obvious that rising CO2 levels have driven a large number of otherwise “sane” politicians, journalists and scientists to “madness.”

J_Crater on July 8, 2010 at 11:39 AM

I can’t imagine how Professor Norton forgot to add “devilishly handsome, dashing, and terminally narcissistic.” In any event, his expertise in climate change should be clear: He is obviously an expert in everything, like the professor in Giligan’s Island.

…..Biting commentary and dead on.

………This is like watching the MSM here flopping around like fish out of water, spinning,lying,and making fools out of themselves in their attempts to cover for a President that is failing miserably but they are to heavily invested in to report on truthfully and accurately.

…The AGW followers are buried neck deep in their “Chicken little climate scare” scheme.So having no more credibility to lose, they blatantly go all out in a “save our butts” campaign that only the most brain dead idiot could not see through.

…..They really have hit a low water mark when scientist cannot be differentiated from the Keith Olbermman’s..

Baxter Greene on July 8, 2010 at 11:40 AM

So they will be making the data available when?

d1carter on July 8, 2010 at 11:41 AM

BP, of course, like every other oil company, is very heavily invested in climate change and expects that some form of carbon-trading commodities market will prove to be a glory hole for the entire industry.

“Glory hole” in every sense of the word. Nasty, dirty pimps.

Squiggy on July 8, 2010 at 11:45 AM

They also concurred with a un animous decision of Sugar over Hagler….

Sonosam on July 8, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Five independent investigation have discovered no evidence of scientific fraud (although some bad behavior and lack of transparency). How many more will it take?

Hal_10000 on July 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM

This is just a sideshow and an intentional distraction. The “climategate” affair really has very little to do with the science of global warming. For open minded folks who want to know what is going on with the climate, see what trained scientists are saying (and, they are not all in agreement).

oakland on July 8, 2010 at 12:10 PM

This makes no difference. So long as their solution to “global warming” is to raise taxes, I’m am absolutely opposed even discussing it. I’ll keep my musket and tricorner hat by the door just in case the Greencoats come to strip me of my liberties.

Cap and Trade is a scam, pure and simple. It is designed to transfer wealth from us to others. What is our reward for handing over our money? A pat on the head if lucky, a “bout time” if we’re not. No way, not a chance. Find another way to combat climate change IF it is a genuine problem.

KillerKane on July 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Why is it these ‘highly edumacated perfessunulllz’ are all such lousy writers? Almost every sentence in Jim’s CV start with ‘he’ or ‘Jim.’ Pathetic.

TinMan13 on July 8, 2010 at 12:48 PM

I don’t believe in Al Gore.

IlikedAUH2O on July 8, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Jim holds the Diploma in Company Direction from the Institute of Directors and is a Chartered Director.

If that was on my resume, I’d take it off or get myself prepared for a Directorship of Salting the Fries with the Manufacturing Division for Ristorante’ de Hamburger – the largest company in the industry. It goes without saying that he would also make an excellent mascot for the company.

Anyone who has ever – oh, I don’t know – held a job, knows that these outside consultants only report back what the organization wants reported back. He who pays the bill at these organizations gets to decide the outcome.

slug on July 8, 2010 at 1:43 PM

I don’t see why they didn’t put Mann and Jones on the review panel itself. I’m sure it would have sped things up.

MrX on July 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Next:

A panel of Bank Robbers will review the convictions of all bank robbers.

Many conviction reversals are expected…

landlines on July 8, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Why in the world do you care about qualifications? You’ve never given any merit to qualifications of the scientists involved in global warming research. As soon as someone points out that over 90% of the most respected scientists- climate research and otherwise- at every major research university in the USA (MIT, CalTech, Michigan, Stanford) and NASA- strongly agree with the overall body of science behind global warming theory, you immediately say that all the ‘experts’ are wrong. Or claim that you’re able to assess the experts’ scientific work and invalidate it.

It’s interesting to hear you suddenly say that you’re concerned by the qualifications of the scientists involved in any aspect of global warming research.

bayam on July 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM

People say that all the time. It does not mean it is true. How about you name all of the qualified scientists who believe in AGW and I’ll test that against the known universe of qualified scientists and then we’ll see whether or not it is 90%.

And, last time I checked, science was not based on a vote. More than 90% of the pre-eminent scientists of yesteryear believed that the earth rotated around the sun. Just because a BELIEF is popular among certain idiots, does not make it a fact.

Once again, we come back to – where is there any science whatsoever supporting AGW? Every major “study” is based on the CRU data, which they cannot produce the raw data b/c they claim they “lost” it. Every major claim has been disproven. Himylain glaciers melting? false. More extreme hurricanes? False. Hockey stick? False. Ice Cap melting? Overall, false. It is melting in some places but thickening in others, and the net change is null.

So, again, you may BELIEVE in AGW. And some scientist whose funding and peer review depend on his belief in AGW may believe in AGW, but there is absolutely no science that has ever been produced anywhere – with raw data released to support it – that demonstrates AGW is a sound theory.

Why do you insist we act on a fully unproven belief? Why not actually, you know, conduct scientific inquiry? what do you have against scientific inquiry?

Monkeytoe on July 8, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Five independent investigation have discovered no evidence of scientific fraud (although some bad behavior and lack of transparency). How many more will it take?

Hal_10000 on July 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Really, five? Please cite to them – meaning give me the links.

How about they turn over all of the emails and all of the raw data to scientists who are skeptical of AGW to review and see what they find? Rather than turning the info over to their buddies I mean?

Monkeytoe on July 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM

And, coming back to the main point – even assuming AGW was real and we could stop it through various economic killing wealth-redistribution policies:

a) it is irrelevent b/c unless you get China, India and south america on board, it is meaningless as Europe and North America contribute very little to current emissions relative to those countries;

b) those countries will not join in with killing their economies.

It makes no sense for the West to unilaterally commit economic suicide if it accomplishes nothing. (Right, i forgot, the “green jobs” will arrive and give everyone a pony so we don’t have to worry about that).

Monkeytoe on July 8, 2010 at 4:03 PM

As soon as someone points out that over 90% of the most respected scientists- climate research and otherwise- at every major research university in the USA (MIT, CalTech, Michigan, Stanford) and NASA- strongly agree with the overall body of science behind global warming theory,

bayam on July 8, 2010 at 10:54 AM

… I point out that it’s not true, never has been true, and when you make such extraordinary claims you have to prove them.

You couldn’t get 90% of scientists in any field to agree on such a narrow and controversial subject – unless you define “most respected” as “people who agree with me.” Actual polls of actual scientists that focus on actual facts and not vague generalities find no such consensus.

The CAGW crowd has been falsifying or just plain making up statistics since DAY ONE. And they’ve been getting caught at it from day one, and if it wasn’t for the shield of a sympathetic and dishonest MFM, the field might have been forced to retreat into doing actual real science about real problems rather than trying to get 10,000 journal references to their made-up computer models as “proof” of something.

Merovign on July 8, 2010 at 6:26 PM

So, again, you may BELIEVE in AGW. And some scientist whose funding and peer review depend on his belief in AGW may believe in AGW, but there is absolutely no science that has ever been produced anywhere – with raw data released to support it – that demonstrates AGW is a sound theory.

I am wondering what would qualify as a “sound theory” to you.

oakland on July 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM

overall body of science behind global warming theory,

Also, I’m 2000% sick of people pulling crap like asking a bunch of academics if they think “climate is changing” and then turn that around into “proof” that they support destroying modern industry and economies to “control” a trivial amount of CO2.

Also with the assumption that climate, unlike every other large, complex, chaotic system we’ve ever tried to measure, is somehow a positive feedback system and not a negative feedback system, despite the measured logarithmic decrease in absorption of infrared energy by increasing concentrations of CO2. I got yer tipping point right here.

And liars in general, sick of ‘em.

Merovign on July 8, 2010 at 6:32 PM

When one of these “investigations” occurs, I’m always reminded of the song Garden of Allah by Don Henley

“Today I made and appearance downtown
I am an expert witness, because I say I am
And I said, ‘Gentleman….and I use that word loosely…I will testify for you
I’m a gun for hire, I’m a saint, I’m a liar
Because there are no facts, no truth, just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like….what’s it worth to ya?
Because there is no wrong, there is no right
And I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution
No remorse, no retribution
Just people selling t-shirts
just opportunity to participate in this pathetic little circus
And winning, winning, winning”

I’m rarely dissapointed…

Hazzard on July 8, 2010 at 8:26 PM

So, again, you may BELIEVE in AGW. And some scientist whose funding and peer review depend on his belief in AGW may believe in AGW, but there is absolutely no science that has ever been produced anywhere – with raw data released to support it – that demonstrates AGW is a sound theory.

I am wondering what would qualify as a “sound theory” to you.

oakland on July 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Interesting that you chose to try and insult rather than citing to anything that answers the central question. Where is the actual science that does not depend on CRU’s “lost” data?

Sound theory, to me (unlike you), is based, you know, on actual data. Data which can be provided to other scientist to test against teh theory. What you have is a belief. YOu believe CRU when they tell you their theory is correct – even though they have refused to provide raw data to test the theory and now claim to have “lost” such data.

But somehow, I am anti-science or dumb.

Funny how one of us has a “scientific theory” that depends entirely on faith, and one of us is asking for scientific data. You think you are the latter, but you are the former.

Monkeytoe on July 9, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Oakland,

And, by the way, the sentance you quoted has my definition of “sound theory” right in it – but I suppose your reading comprehension, like your scientific knowledge, is stunted.

Sound theory is a theory wit raw data – that is release to other scientists (including those who are skeptical of your claims) that supports your theory. No AGW believer has ever produced any such data. Only graphs and anecdote. The graph (the hockey stick) is disproven. Anecdote – even that which is not disproven – is not scientific evidence.

Why does it trouble the left so much that some people want actual science with released data to back up the claims of AGW?

could there be an ulterior motive at play?

I can’t imagine why the request for actual science is so troubling to you.

Monkeytoe on July 9, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Interesting that you chose to try and insult rather than citing to anything that answers the central question.

Interesting that you consider a question to be an insult. This shows me that you are emotionally, rather than intellectually involved.
As for the science, there is plenty out there to read. If you are really interested, you will find it.

oakland on July 9, 2010 at 10:02 AM