|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 9, 2010 1:45:54 GMT 1
I notice you employ standard board tactics of nit picking about un-important minor points to deflect from the main debate which you have no answer. If it was nit picking an un-important point, it was YOUR un-important point but that hasn't stopped me replying to the numerous others. How am I deflecting the debate or have no answers? I agree with the opening post. I was pointing out your error of Etymology. |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 9, 2010 1:51:21 GMT 1
Oxburgh said he was not looking at the climategate "science". Why would he? It has already been through peer review and it is freely available for anyone to read. Pick a paper, have a read. You might learn some science. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 9, 2010 8:25:33 GMT 1
Oxburgh's remit as originally published by UEA was precisely to look at the science. But they chickened out of that, usurprisingly.
So Oxburgh very kindly helped them out with their "problem" and applied a nice bit of witewash called "integrity". So was it:
Stupid but with integrity?
Misled but with integrity?
Incompetent but with integrity?
or
Downright dishonest but with integrity!
The CRU would not have been hauled over the coals if peer review (actually pal review) had been sufficient to guarantee the accuracy and competence of their work. it was a travesty of a "research institute" and now everyone knows it no matter how much ink is spilt by the Havelock Lazarus apologists of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 9, 2010 10:33:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 9, 2010 10:36:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 11:53:58 GMT 1
From www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/decision.html#I-A"After a comprehensive, careful review and analysis of the petitions, EPA has determined that the petitioners’ arguments and evidence are inadequate, generally unscientific, and do not show that the underlying science supporting the Endangerment Finding is flawed, misinterpreted by EPA, or inappropriately applied by EPA. The science supporting the Administrator’s finding that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future U.S. generations is robust, voluminous, and compelling. The most recent science assessment by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences strongly affirms this view. In addition, the approach and procedures used by EPA to evaluate the underlying science demonstrate that the Findings remain robust and appropriate. " and "Inquiries from the UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, the University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel, the Pennsylvania State University, and the University of East Anglia, Russell Panel 3, all entirely independent from EPA, have examined the issues and many of the same allegations brought forward by the petitioners as a result of the disclosure of the private CRU e-mails. These inquiries are now complete. Their conclusions are in line with EPA’s review and analysis of these same CRU e-mails. The inquiries have found no evidence of scientific misconduct or intentional data manipulation on the part of the climate researchers associated with the CRU e-mails. " Does anyone seriously believe that the US Environmental Protection Agency has been 'bought' or otherwise influenced to come to these findings by a bunch of scientists at a UK university? No doubt it makes no difference how many independant (from each other) enquiries come to the same conclusion - some people will refuse to believe them. |
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 9, 2010 20:28:53 GMT 1
havelock, Seriously man, you have to be getting paid to keep posting this tripe. You'd look less of a fool if you superglued yourself to the front of a bus in a pair of brown, saggy Y fronts.  |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 9, 2010 20:32:42 GMT 1
havelock, Seriously man, you have to be getting paid to keep posting this tripe. You'd look less of a fool if you superglued yourself to the front of a bus in a pair of brown, saggy Y fronts. And your point is? |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 14, 2010 18:38:21 GMT 1
Press release London, 14 September – The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations. The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate. In particular, the report finds that: none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence none managed to be objective and comprehensive none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics terms of reference were either vague or non-existent none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU. Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said: “The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims.” “All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place,” Andrew Montford warned. Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said: “The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence.” “The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford’s report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified.” “Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need,” Lord Turnbull said. Lord Turnbull also called on the Government to look at the serious criticisms of the IPCC made in the recent InterAcademy Council Report. He said: “The Government should demand that the fundamental reforms recommended by the IAC in the practice, governance and leadership of the IPCC are implemented immediately for its Fifth Assessment.” Full report here: www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 18:16:48 GMT 1
The Global Warming Policy Foundation's two main criticism of the previous enquiries were that;
a) They were one sided and there wasn't enough sceptics on the panels - so they pay a known sceptic and involve no one who accepts AGW!
b) That the CRU et al were not open enough with it's information, but the GWPF refuse to say who funds them - and you can be sure that they are hiding their backers because they have a vested interest in business when it comes to GHG emissions.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 17, 2010 0:59:04 GMT 1
£azarus wrote: "known sceptic and involve no one who accepts AGW!" That's a good description of un-biased scientists. What would you rather have - A firm believer in AGW?  |
|
