"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Parliamentary Committee Whitewash- "Scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"

The Irish Times reports that  :Scientists at a leading British climate research centre had a culture of withholding information from global warming sceptics but did not deliberately manipulate data to support their case, politicians said today.
The report makes the amazing statement that "The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," , making the reader wonder what such a committee would consider enough to damage a Warming scientist's reputation - nothing it would seem!


In the first official report into the theft of emails from the unit last year, a British parliamentary committee said the messages did not contradict the mainstream scientific view that man-made emissions have contributed to rising temperatures.
Thousands of emails exchanged between scientists were published on the Internet days before world leaders met in Copenhagen for climate change talks last December.
The government has acknowledged that the ensuing row dented public confidence in the evidence underpinning man's role in raising global temperatures.
Campaigners who doubt the science behind man-made global warming said the messages showed researchers hid, exaggerated or fiddled the data to support the consensus view.
Parliament's Science and Technology Committee rejected that assessment of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), but sharply condemned the unit for witholding information requested by outsiders under Britain's freedom of information laws.
"The culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics, we felt was reprehensible," Committee Chairman Phil Willis told a news conference.
Professor Phil Jones, head of the unit, was cleared of dishonestly fiddling the data to strengthen his evidence.
"The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," the report said. "We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus."
The committee found nothing sinister in Jones' use of the words "hide the decline" and "trick" in two emails about temperature changes that attracted the most public attention.
"Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded. Similarly, Jones intended "trick" to mean a neat way of handling evidence, rather than anything underhanded.
The university has set up two separate inquiries into the email affair and British police are investigating the hacking.
One big bucket of whitewash , liberally applied!

11 comments:

  1. Carbon is a FRAUD. Regulating it is a money-making scam by CROOKS and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Compromise is a bad word and people need to remember that. Compromise the mission = your guys lost and got killed. Compromised an ally = you left someone out to dry. Compromise on BS AGW = you sold out the American People, Freedom, and your own "Hope the Alligator eats me last" carcass.

    AGW is a COMMUNIST SCAM. Everyone knows it but the Liberal Elite Mouthpieces

    ReplyDelete
  2. The problem with the "climate change lobby" is that it is UN,EU,and the policy of most governments.
    Some $55 billion has been spent on the "science" but the very funding has skewed the findings.
    We have seen that the IPCC,WWF and others have jumped on any straw that floated along,glaciers,rainfall,coral,sea level,etc,etc.
    The smoke is so thick from the dummy findings it has "lost the way" all thet can do is cry foul and hope that governments remain deluded.
    Their road map, "The rules of the GAME",printed by government and bible to Defra,WWF,and many others,describes how to CONVERT the public by feeding them the SIZZLE [their word].The sizzle being all the woes that "could" befall mankind if the temperature rose by 2+ deg C.
    In reality ,more food,healthier climate in most places etc.
    What would be worse would be the temperature FALLING . You will read that some climate scientists say CO2 could now make the temperature fall! this is a major U -turn
    for the last 25 years they have been working on the opposite view.
    Have they done this to jump on the fact that the sun is going into a "quiet period"which "real scientists" have been forecasting .
    The IPCC scientists computer models have failed to work over 1,5,10 years,so stand by for all the excuses.
    Nostrodamus did better with a few runes!

    ReplyDelete
  3. whitewash, cover up.

    Mud sticks though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I refer to the BBC series "Yes Minister".

    What was Sir Humphrey's advice to his Minister, The Rt Hon Jim Hacker MP? Never hold a Parliamentary inquiry unless one first knows what the outcome of the inquiry will be?

    Well, that is what has happened in this case... the need was to salvage the honour and reputation of its world famous university and climate institution... to salvage the very reputation of Britain itself... at any cost!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics, we felt was reprehensible,"

    -HOWEVER-

    "The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,"

    Therefore:
    Phil Jones had and still has a scientific reputation that is reprehesible.
    QED

    ReplyDelete
  6. ...and the CRU, too!

    ReplyDelete
  7. All this does is illustrate that the fraud has spread far and wide. One criminal organization covering for another. Just how stupid do they think we are? Science is not something we vote on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh what a surprise. I would have bet my right leg this was going to be the case. The UN juggernaut would never allow itself to be stopped by something as trivial as the truth. I think the only way out of this is through a revolution of some sort.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The scientific reputation of Professor Jones remains intact."

    This is a guy who was part of a group that made a big issue about peer review and the fact that his detractors' papers had not been subject to it and were therefore worthless.

    When asked to publish his data however, he said "Why should I make my data available to people who just want to find things wrong with it."

    I am not a scientist, I am just a fairly intelligent pleb who reads a lot. Even I know that peer review involves allowing the entirety of your work to be examined by supporters and sceptics alike, and your work is only worth something if it can pass this most rigorous of testing.

    I think that, in reality, the jury is still out on Phil Jones' reputation. Maybe after the data, that had to be wrenched from his grasp by illegal means, has been analysed by supporters and sceptics alike we will have a better idea.

    ReplyDelete
  10. These guys are not scientists; they're not even good at politics. The only reason they survived as long as they did was because the major news media, all left-wing, LOVES the UN !

    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw

    ReplyDelete
  11. Phil North is guilty of bad science,using bad data and hiding it from critical view. Can you imaging building a bridge using software like Harry's or calculating girder sizes on massaged data, or hiding drug test results from the public or any such behavior being remotely acceptable.He is not a scientist in any definion of the word.

    ReplyDelete