Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup

[G_T]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...

So the much awaited independent review not only frees the CRU of any wrong doing but points out the fact that they made a point of highlighting weaknesses in their statistical methods.

So as I understand it we have two ways to look at this;

1) The CRU is actually not perfect but have not fiddled data.
2) The independent review is also part of the largest scientific conspiracy in human history.

Please discuss.

[elster]

I prefer apples to oranges, yet I prefer to drink orange juice.

Or did you want to discuss your post?

[rich1231]

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

[esselte]

G_T said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...

So the much awaited independent review not only frees the CRU of any wrong doing but points out the fact that they made a point of highlighting weaknesses in their statistical methods.

So as I understand it we have two ways to look at this;

1) The CRU is actually not perfect but have not fiddled data.
2) The independent review is also part of the largest scientific conspiracy in human history.

Please discuss.

Would that be the review headed by Lord Oxburgh,the chairman of Falk Renewables wind energy company...no conflict of interest then...

[ludo]

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

[tybo]

G_T said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...

So the much awaited independent review not only frees the CRU of any wrong doing but points out the fact that they made a point of highlighting weaknesses in their statistical methods.

So as I understand it we have two ways to look at this;

1) The CRU is actually not perfect but have not fiddled data.
2) The independent review is also part of the largest scientific conspiracy in human history.

Please discuss.

Number 2 it is then.

[cs02rm0]

Just another independent review that isn't.

[esselte]

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

And a chairman for whom the outcome could be important

Edited by esselte on Thursday 15th April 13:38

[dilbert]

I find it interesting that the investigation only suggests that there was no impropriety, which would always be a difficult deal to prove.

The article suggests that CRU acted to bring things out in the open, but this seems suspicious. I thought it took the Russian Hacker Mafia (or whatever) to bring it all out into the open.

The final clincher for me, is the one that says anyone who criticises the CRU in future will never work as a researcher again.

To me that last point hardly seems conducive to critical thought.

The way I read it, the CRU is a bit embarrassed about their dodgy code. They're saying that they didn't really have the control that they should over it, and that they're not sure how they can control it in future. Presumably this means they're just saying;

"You've seen it now, and we'll take the credit for eventually admitting that it's a bit pants. Please sod of and stop hassling us, so we can get on with covering it all in and building the next wave madness."

Edited by dilbert on Thursday 15th April 13:52

[hairykrishna]

The report is here;

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstate...

[ludo]

esselte said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

And a chairman for whom the outcome could be important

So everyone on this forum (responsible for the 470 page thread) is impartial and don't mind if AGW leads to higher taxes or limitations on engine size etc. Give me a break!

[AshVX220]

Normal business resumes. If they genuinely believe what they say in the report, will they re-instate PJ with immediate effect?

[esselte]

ludo said:

esselte said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

And a chairman for whom the outcome could be important

So everyone on this forum (responsible for the 470 page thread) is impartial and don't mind if AGW leads to higher taxes or limitations on engine size etc. Give me a break!

But they weren't chosen to head the inquiry...do you not see any issue with this...? Shouldn't the chairman have been totally impartial?

[mrmr96]

ludo said:

esselte said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

And a chairman for whom the outcome could be important

So everyone on this forum (responsible for the 470 page thread) is impartial and don't mind if AGW leads to higher taxes or limitations on engine size etc. Give me a break!

We never claimed to be independant, but he did.

[dilbert]

esselte said:

ludo said:

esselte said:

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

And a chairman for whom the outcome could be important

So everyone on this forum (responsible for the 470 page thread) is impartial and don't mind if AGW leads to higher taxes or limitations on engine size etc. Give me a break!

But they weren't chosen to head the inquiry...do you not see any issue with this...? Shouldn't the chairman have been totally impartial?

[sarcastic]They couldn't find anyone else with the necessary experience![/sarcastic]

[ludo]

AshVX220 said:

Normal business resumes. If they genuinely believe what they say in the report, will they re-instate PJ with immediate effect?

There is still at least one investigation left to report in, so it won't happen at least until then.

[hairykrishna]

What about the other members of the panel (respected experts one and all);

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge

Did he drag them along with his pro wind power views? Are they all part of a conspiracy to help his stock options?

[Jinx]

ludo said:

So everyone on this forum (responsible for the 470 page thread) is impartial and don't mind if AGW leads to higher taxes or limitations on engine size etc. Give me a break!

Erm not all of us on this forum have V8s and sub 20 mpg fuel consumption. The "independent" review merely looked at 11 papers over 20 years and had a nice chat with the lads at CRU. Their conclusions that "boys will be boys" is a little less convincing than Mann's hockey stick (phnarr phnarr) .
Rigorous is not the word - oh yes inept, incomplete and whitewash - much better words.

[s2art]

hairykrishna said:

What about the other members of the panel (respected experts one and all);

Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge

Did he drag them along with his pro wind power views? Are they all part of a conspiracy to help his stock options?

AFAICT it was a 3 week effort that produced a 5 page report, looked at a handful of papers and didnt interview any of the critics who pointed out flaws.
Basically they didnt do much and any conclusion lacks all credibility.

[Somewhatfoolish]

ludo said:

rich1231 said:

You might not have seen the 470 odd page thread down the page already discussing this.

The difference is that the independent investigation involved eminent scientists, such as David Hand, who actually know what they are talking about.

It's actually quite sad, if AGW deniers would stop acting like tin foil hat wearing nutters and accept the science then we could start working towards sensible solutions rather than leaving it to left wingers.