bushwacked Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 An independent report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world's leading climate research centers on Wednesday largely vindicated the scientists involved, saying they acted honestly and that their research was reliable. Good thing no-one got fooled into buying it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 I am sure that everyone that was bashing them and ranting about the massive coverup will be along presently to retract their statements... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 If you read it closely it says the data the looked at hadn't been altered. They still haven't looked at the data that was conveniently deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 If you read it closely it says the data the looked at hadn't been altered. They still haven't looked at the data that was conveniently deleted. !GOMZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Leading academics were called for written and oral evidence before the Russell enquiry, and in many cases the report accepts their account of events. The subjects of their criticism were not invited, not were climate scientists critical of their behaviour. For example, in their capacity as IPCC gatekeepers, the academics are cleared of excluding critical evidence, and yet bending the rules to include supporting studies. To reach this particular conclusion, for example, the report finds a criterion: a "consistence of view" with earlier work. The earlier work here was in fact produced the academics under scrutiny. So, having compared the CRU academics' work against their previous work, and found it to be consistent, they are cleared of malpractice. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/mu...ategate_report/ Yes, they were able to pass the rigorous standards of asking themselves if they thought they should be in trouble. This isn't a referendum on global warming, it's a university enquiry sweeping their problems under the rug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/mu...ategate_report/ Yes, they were able to pass the rigorous standards of asking themselves if they thought they should be in trouble. This isn't a referendum on global warming, it's a university enquiry sweeping their problems under the rug. Shhhh. Never wake a sleepwalker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Good news for the horny sex poodle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Hmmm...GW believers finding no fault with other GW believers. Well..I'm satisfied! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 So, I happen to agree with 3 separate independent inquires and agree with the overwhelming Scientific opinion . And happen to disagree with Ratass, tosberg, and Perch. I think that speaks volumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 So, I happen to agree with 3 separate independent inquires and agree with the overwhelming Scientific opinion . fail X 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 fail X 2 I wish there was a sideways 8 on my keyboard....I would have replaced the "2" with it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 (edited) fail X 2 And now you and Avernus have your hat receivers pointed in the same direction in the stratsophere. Edited July 8, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 good info here, here, and here The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”? – Anthony Watts independent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 oh where oh where is al bore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 good info here, here, and here You do realize climateaudit.org you are referring to for "good info" is at the heart of Climategate? Don't you? independent Guess not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 You do realize climateaudit.org you are referring to for "good info" is at the heart of Climategate? Don't you? umm, yeah. he's the guy they were hiding data from, the guy they were conspiring to discredit, etc. he's also the guy -- as you say, at the heart of climategate -- that none of these "independent" inquiries bothered to contact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 umm, yeah. he's the guy they were hiding data from, the guy they were conspiring to discredit, etc. he's also the guy -- as you say, at the heart of climategate -- that none of these "independent" inquiries bothered to contact. The anti-GW spin machine is in overtime today. So you roll your eyes at the conclusion of 3 separate independent inquires by giving full trust to posts on the world's most notorious anti-GW website ran by the guy who has the biggest chip on his shoulder for his ruse (which included an illegal gathering of emails, that he just "picked up and ran with") turning to crap. Yer a hardcore partisan, an insta-hypocrite, and a f'n joke dude. This is just like you clamoring on CBO numbers before you were against them, ridiculing people for posting anti-Bush Rolling Stone articles before posting RS anti-Obama articles, and the other day claiming that FactCheck is a joke because it contradicted some BS claim you were harping on that originated from Fox and Friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 wow, who woulda thought that little post would get yer panties wedged so far up your crack. you're flailing a little bit here, and need to focus. I think you should go back to defending how awesomely obama is dealing with the oil spill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 (edited) you're flailing a little bit here, and need to focus. C'mon it's not like you to give up this easy; I'm sure you can find another 10,000 blogs from the likes of climatescienceisaleftistconspiracy.com you can copy and paste. Edited July 8, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 (edited) climateaudit is a political blog? damn I can't keep up with your edits! that's three in as many minutes Edited July 8, 2010 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 damn I can't keep up with your edits! that's three in as many minutes I need to stop doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I wish there was a sideways 8 on my keyboard....I would have replaced the "2" with it... ∞ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 climateaudit is a political blog? damn I can't keep up with your edits! that's three in as many minutes I can't keep up with our "scientists" edits. I didn't take much science in school, but I do know a little about business. If you are getting paid to produce fear, you produce fear. All the non-global warming scientists are unemployed and/or discredited. I don't blame these hacks for continuing to suck at the teat of government funding. But I do have issue with those that blindly disregard that fact, and continue to fight the fight to redistribute our wealth as a result. I should write a book about all this called Gullible's Travels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 (edited) I can't keep up with our "scientists" edits. I didn't take much science in school, but I do know a little about business. If you are getting paid to produce fear, you produce fear. All the non-global warming scientists are unemployed and/or discredited. I don't blame these hacks for continuing to suck at the teat of government funding. But I do have issue with those that blindly disregard that fact, and continue to fight the fight to redistribute our wealth as a result. I should write a book about all this called Gullible's Travels. I have to admit, that is a great title. Actually, you should write it. If Glen Beck can become a best-seller, there is no reason you couldn't also. That isn't a slam, I think there is a market out there that thrives on consumers of this type of stuff. You certainly seem passionate enough! Edited July 8, 2010 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 (edited) Three Strikes and you're out? Will the new report shore up support for climate legislation in Washington? Not likely -- Climategate was the kind of political scandal (doctored evidence! cover-up! conspiracy!) that's just too sexy to be beaten with white papers. But it's worth noting how tall the pile of white papers is growing -- two previous inquiries also absolved the university and its scientists, and a Penn State University probe similarly cleared a scientist there of suppressing or falsifying data. And that summarizes it, if people are hell bent on wanting to believe a conspiracy and have the political loyalty to deny, common sense and logic gets thrown out the window and no mountain of evidence is ever going to convince one otherwise. Edited July 8, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.