Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Riverwind

ClimateGate and the Climatati

Recommended Posts

Are you a member of the British Parliament,perhaps? One of the good old boys.

As a postscript:

Why don't you say you are just a political activist.

Pliny... I thought you previously labeled me a "union activist". :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

I'm glad you think so. I do as well.

I'm also glad that you agree that the intent was there, he just didn't act on it, as far as we know. Because the intent to pervert the peer review process is still very important. I think a very reasonable question to ask is what other studies and papers has this intention of silencing been attempted or contemplated to?

Cherrypicking the intelligence...er...science is a very serious issue.

You of all people should know that not everything a person says (especially when it's done via private email) is serious. Or should we be getting the RCMP to check on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm sure they were just joking around. :rolleyes: Wow, that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**yawn**... another day... another CRU/Phil Jones independent inquiry exoneration! Badda Bing, Badda Boom! :lol:

Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm over emails released on the internet were disorganised but did not fudge their results, an independent inquiry into the affair reported today.

The inquiry, the second of three set up in the wake of the controversy, found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever", according to Lord Oxburgh, who led the investigation.

Instead, Oxburgh said, many of the criticisms and assertions of scientific misconduct were likely made by people "who do not like the implications of some the conclusions" reached by the climate experts.

Shady... Badda Bing, Badda Boom! :lol: (continued denier whining, foot stomping and gnashing of teeth - film @11:00)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Yeah, I'm sure they were just joking around. :rolleyes: Wow, that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. :blink:

So what your 100% serious about everything you say in private? Good give me your name and adress and I'll be sure the RCMP gets it along with all of the threats you've made to various people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm over emails released on the internet were disorganised but did not fudge their results, an independent inquiry into the affair reported today.

The inquiry, the second of three set up in the wake of the controversy, found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever", according to Lord Oxburgh, who led the investigation.

Instead, Oxburgh said, many of the criticisms and assertions of scientific misconduct were likely made by people "who do not like the implications of some the conclusions" reached by the climate experts

Lord Oxburgh is one of the biggest AGW true-believers in existence. You think he'd actually find Phil Jones guilty of anything? Other than being the greatest person in the world! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(continued denier whining, foot stomping and gnashing of teeth - film @11:00)

yabut Shady... in light of the various fabricated assertions coming from the true Hackergate deniers, this particular panel that Lord Oxburgh chaired was set up in consultation with the Royal Society to assess the integrity of the research published by CRU.

apparently, this particular independent panel needed a chair and members conversant in science and scientific practice to actually review an assortment of the more high-profile CRU papers, particularly those that the true Hackergate deniers elevated to prominence in their attempts to fabricate doubt and uncertainty over the Hackergate emails.

members of the scientific panel that reviewed the CRU research papers:

- Chair: Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool)

- Prof Huw Davies, professor of physics at the Institute for Atmospheric & Climate Science at ETH Z├╝rich

- Prof Kerry Emanuel, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

- Prof Lisa Graumlich, directs the school of natural resources and the environment at University of Arizona.

- Prof David Hand FBA, professor of statistics in the department of mathematics at Imperial College, London.

- Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, professor of theoretical geophysics at the University of Cambridge

- Prof Michael Kelly FRS, Prince Philip professor of technology at the University of Cambridge

oh, Shady... your baseless concerns over the integrity of Ron Oxburgh seem at odds with oil industry magnate, Shell Oil - for some reason Shell Oil appointed Ron Oxburgh to chair it's UK branch... perhaps they had designs on "keeping tabs on him"... hey? :lol:

yes, Shady... Ron Oxburgh has a real checked past, one completely devoid of knowledge and expertise (/snarc):

Ron Oxburgh: a graduate of the Universities of Oxford and Princeton. He has taught geology and geophysics at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He has been a visiting professor at Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology and Cornell University. Lord Oxburgh has been a member of the Science and the Engineering Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, and the Advisory Council for Science and Technology. From 1988 to 1993 he was chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, and from 1993 to 2001, Rector of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. He is a member of A*star (Advisory Committee on Science, Technology and Research for Singapore). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a Foreign Member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences.

yes, Shady... this independent scientific focused panel exonerated CRU, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, etc.; finding no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of it's research results to a preconceived agenda... (continued denier whining, foot stomping and gnashing of teeth - film @11:00)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Oxburgh has a real checked past, one completely devoid of knowledge and expertise (/snarc):

Ron Oxburgh: a graduate of the Universities of Oxford and Princeton. He has taught geology and geophysics at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He has been a visiting professor at Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology and Cornell University. Lord Oxburgh has been a member of the Science and the Engineering Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, and the Advisory Council for Science and Technology. From 1988 to 1993 he was chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, and from 1993 to 2001, Rector of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. He is a member of A*star (Advisory Committee on Science, Technology and Research for Singapore). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a Foreign Member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences.

yes, Shady... this independent scientific focused panel exonerated CRU, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, etc.; finding no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of it's research results to a preconceived agenda... (continued denier whining, foot stomping and gnashing of teeth - film @11:00)

Unfortunately, he is just trying to resurrect a dying issue.

Why don't you decry his association with Shell Oil? I suppose since he's your guy it's ok to be in the employ of big oil, one of your constant whining points about the "deniers". Are you perhaps in the employ of big oil?

You know, the term "deniers" is about the holocaust. Science claimed the Jews were genetically inferior and the Aryan the superior race. It was deemed that killing Jews was putting them out of their misery. Many years after the holocaust many denied it occurred. they were called holocaust "deniers". Like it or not it is a word association game intended pejoratively.

What are you really denying? Is haunting forums with opposing views or doubters to climate change your full time occupation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, he is just trying to resurrect a dying issue.

yes, that's right... you and deniers world-wide seem particularly taken with such a dying issue? :lol:

Why don't you decry his association with Shell Oil? I suppose since he's your guy it's ok to be in the employ of big oil, one of your constant whining points about the "deniers". Are you perhaps in the employ of big oil?

you're fixated on labeling me, attaching my motivations... I could easily stream together a half-dozen quotes of yours to that effect. Thanks for caring! As for Oxburgh's Shell Oil past, this BBC profile piece perhaps captures a few of his personal motivations... perhaps you could speak for why Shell favoured him, although the BBC profile article lends a hint to Shell needing to polish it's image to shareholders over the scandal related to overestimating it's oil reserves. BBC Profile:

Lord Oxburgh has spoken about there being "a social responsibility on people from other backgrounds to participate in the corporate world".

He was also influential in getting Shell to form a social responsibilities committee.

He told the Guardian newspaper: "I think that in corporate organisations like Shell... you develop a corporate mentality and you can develop an insensitivity to some of the factors that weigh very heavily with people outside."

Lord Oxburgh's views may help the embattled company as it attempts to turn around its crumpled image.

The company took a beating after it emerged it has been overstating its oil reserves.

You know, the term "deniers" is about the holocaust. Science claimed the Jews were genetically inferior and the Aryan the superior race. It was deemed that killing Jews was putting them out of their misery. Many years after the holocaust many denied it occurred. they were called holocaust "deniers". Like it or not it is a word association game intended pejoratively.

nice try - haven't you anything else to fabricate at the moment?

The denier part of it is perjorative...The fans of the wacko leftist confiscatory cabal use the word to defame a person...Likening them to Holocaust deniers...

It's low brow stuff but what do you expect from nutters who bow at the altar of Extreme Environmentalism?
bullshit! The term
deniers
is long-standing within the lexicon of the climate change debate. The only persons that associate the term deniers with anything other than individuals who deny the theory of AGW climate change, are themselves deniers who would presume to fabricate pejorative intent... like those wingnuts who use pejoratives like "wacko", like "leftist", like "confiscatory cabal", like "nutters", like "bowing at the altar".... why, like you Jack Weber.

What are you really denying? Is haunting forums with opposing views or doubters to climate change your full time occupation?

ha! pot meet kettle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you decry his association with Shell Oil?

Great observation. Probably because waldo's one of the biggest hypocrites ever to lurk this forum. If one is critical of AGW and has any connection to an energy interest, even if it's tenuous at best, he makes sure to use it to attack their message. But if an AGW true-believer is associated with energy interests, he gives them a pass. Because in that case, the message is all that counts. Pathetic. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great observation. Probably because waldo's one of the biggest hypocrites ever to lurk this forum. If one is critical of AGW and has any connection to an energy interest, even if it's tenuous at best, he makes sure to use it to attack their message. But if an AGW true-believer is associated with energy interests, he gives them a pass. Because in that case, the message is all that counts. Pathetic. :rolleyes:

buddy, c'mon... he was Big Oil - why would you criticize his participation in exonerating CRU/Phil Jones/Keith Briffa? That lil' reference to Shell Oil was one I purposely made to showcase your (and others) hypocrisy... that he had a diverse background and wasn't just in academia. Yes, Shady... hypocrisy is thy name! :lol:

although you obviously quote mine to no end, let's make sure you can't deny the quote I offered in the earlier reply to another MLW member... one would need to be a Shady character to not accept the academic credentials of Oxburgh - I would think his own short touchdown in the corporate world was somewhat qualified with the previous quote offered in that BBC profile piece:

Lord Oxburgh has spoken about there being "a social responsibility on people from other backgrounds to participate in the corporate world".

He was also influential in getting Shell to form a social responsibilities committee.

He told the Guardian newspaper: "I think that in corporate organisations like Shell... you develop a corporate mentality and you can develop an insensitivity to some of the factors that weigh very heavily with people outside."

Lord Oxburgh's views may help the embattled company as it attempts to turn around its crumpled image.

The company took a beating after it emerged it has been overstating its oil reserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Oxburgh has spoken about there being "a social responsibility on people from other backgrounds to participate in the corporate world".

which is what my daughter related to me about some of her uni classes...students from the Commerce field of studies picking up electives in her field(Social Sciences)have a skewed view of the world, they're so focused on their field of interest that they are sometimes completely out of touch with humanity, they live in a world of dollars and cents...whereas the students in the social sciences would like be just the opposite and possibly totally lost in the world of business...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I purposely made to showcase your (and others) hypocrisy... that he had a diverse background and wasn't just in academia.

Nah, you're just a hypocrite. When AGW skeptics have so-called "diverse backgrounds", you use it to attack them and their message. How about you pick a standard and stick to it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buddy, c'mon... he was Big Oil - why would you criticize his participation in exonerating CRU/Phil Jones/Keith Briffa? That lil' reference to Shell Oil was one I purposely made to showcase your (and others) hypocrisy... that he had a diverse background and wasn't just in academia. Yes, Shady... hypocrisy is thy name! :lol:

although you obviously quote mine to no end, let's make sure you can't deny the quote I offered in the earlier reply to another MLW member... one would need to be a Shady character to not accept the academic credentials of Oxburgh - I would think his own short touchdown in the corporate world was somewhat qualified with the previous quote offered in that BBC profile piece:

Lord Oxburgh has spoken about there being "a social responsibility on people from other backgrounds to participate in the corporate world".

He was also influential in getting Shell to form a social responsibilities committee.

He told the Guardian newspaper: "I think that in corporate organisations like Shell... you develop a corporate mentality and you can develop an insensitivity to some of the factors that weigh very heavily with people outside."

Lord Oxburgh's views may help the embattled company as it attempts to turn around its crumpled image.

The company took a beating after it emerged it has been overstating its oil reserves.

Nah, you're just a hypocrite. When AGW skeptics have so-called "diverse backgrounds", you use it to attack them and their message. How about you pick a standard and stick to it!

lil' buddy, sorry to disappoint you but your standard, one that prefers "diverse backgrounds" that encompass TV weatherman, fake blog scientists, lazy dishonest journalists, howler broadcasters, obstructionist politicos, etc., isn't one that I aspire to.

you still didn't answer why you were so upset over Lord "Big Oil" Oxburgh's participation in the second independent investigation that exonerated CRU/Phil Jones/Keith Briffa/etc. Why so upset Shady? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

save your revisionism for the actual threads that speak to the illegality of the Dubya invasion of Iraq... predicated upon the manufactured WMD evidence that Shady's imaginary quote reference makes very precisely. You can also revise those many statements from U.S. Democrats that indicate they wouldn't have agreed... without the manufactured WMD evidence... the best darn intelligence Dubya needed! Like I said, take it to the other thread(s).

So, it turned out that Saddam was lying about having WMD's. If someone in an airport yells "I have a bomb" and is running full-tilt around the metal detectors, do we check if he's lying, or maybe shoot to kill if necessary?

Also, was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait "legal"? Are the Gazan missile attacks on Israeli schools "legal"?

The double-standard is breathaking. For some reason you want the West to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, it turned out that Saddam was lying about having WMD's. If someone in an airport yells "I have a bomb" and is running full-tilt around the metal detectors, do we check if he's lying, or maybe shoot to kill if necessary?

Also, was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait "legal"? Are the Gazan missile attacks on Israeli schools "legal"?

The double-standard is breathaking. For some reason you want the West to lose.

like I said, take your own selective breathtaking double-standard to the correct thread... there's currently an active running MLW thread for just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like I said, take your own selective breathtaking double-standard to the correct thread... there's currently an active running MLW thread for just that.

Link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
**yawn**... another day... another CRU/Phil Jones independent inquiry exoneration! Badda Bing, Badda Boom! :lol:

Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm over emails released on the internet were disorganised but did not fudge their results, an independent inquiry into the affair reported today.

The inquiry, the second of three set up in the wake of the controversy, found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever", according to Lord Oxburgh, who led the investigation.

Instead, Oxburgh said, many of the criticisms and assertions of scientific misconduct were likely made by people "who do not like the implications of some the conclusions" reached by the climate experts.

Shady... Badda Bing, Badda Boom! :lol: (continued denier whining, foot stomping and gnashing of teeth - film @11:00)

another exoneration... yup, just about sounding the final death knell for denier's hackergate wet-dreams!

RA-1O Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E, Mann - The Pennsylvania State University - June 4, 2010

The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.

More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.

The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.

This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research.

The Investigatory Committee established that Dr. Mann, in all of his published studies, precisely identified the source(s) of his raw data and, whenever possible, made the data and or links to the data available to other researchers.

Dr. Mann's actual practices with regard to making source codes and intermediate data readily available reflect, in all respects, evolving practices within his field

apparently, there exists an inordinate level of weeping, gnashing of teeth and wild thrashing about within denialtown - go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another exoneration... yup, just about sounding the final death knell for denier's hackergate wet-dreams!

RA-1O Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E, Mann - The Pennsylvania State University - June 4, 2010

apparently, there exists an inordinate level of weeping, gnashing of teeth and wild thrashing about within denialtown - go figure.

The investigatory committee is in the pockets of the Big Science fatcats.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another exoneration... yup, just about sounding the final death knell for denier's hackergate wet-dreams!

RA-1O Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E, Mann - The Pennsylvania State University - June 4, 2010

apparently, there exists an inordinate level of weeping, gnashing of teeth and wild thrashing about within denialtown - go figure.

The investigatory committee is in the pockets of the Big Science fatcats.

:)

Bloodyminded -

You jest but even though scientists don't get rich they do earn a living. And if there weren't a "crisis", real or feigned, there wouldn't be much research. They'd lose their raison d'etre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloodyminded -

You jest but even though scientists don't get rich they do earn a living. And if there weren't a "crisis", real or feigned, there wouldn't be much research. They'd lose their raison d'etre.

There is a lot of money to be made working on behalf of oil and other energy companies. Climatologists who are doing real research on global warming all have to chase the same dollars from government and a few institutional trust funds. The climate deniers have access to a web of research grants; direct payments for books, news articles and speaking fees; and backdoor funding intended for the purpose of confusing the public about climate: http://www.desmogblog.com/oily-echo-machine-behind-climategate

Desmog Blog does a partial analysis, but money originating from energy companies can pass through two, three, or four hands, before it arrives at the door of the dissident climate "scientist," politician, or media talking head who promotes messages that deny global warming....say it's from natural causes....or even that it's real, but it will cost more than it's worth to switch to a green economy.....whatever it takes, Exxon, BP and Chevron, and the gas and coal companies also BTW, will pay for it as long as the talking head at the end of the money trail keeps spreading the confusing messages that they want out there.

Almost forgot! The Koch Family, owners of Koch Industries, has them all beat:

Koch Industries

Bleeding Edge Blog

How many others are out there that have managed to keep the funding trail hidden until now?

Edited by WIP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of money to be made working on behalf of oil and other energy companies. Climatologists who are doing real research on global warming all have to chase the same dollars from government and a few institutional trust funds. The climate deniers have access to a web of research grants; direct payments for books, news articles and speaking fees; and backdoor funding intended for the purpose of confusing the public about climate: http://www.desmogblog.com/oily-echo-machine-behind-climategate

There's a difference. For profit companies don't do much funding of basic research any more. And climate research isn't far removed from basic research since it doesn't by itself generate a usable product. At best it generates information to counter other disinformation.

The global warming crew on the other hand has no need to produce a result since they're on government and/or university funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

Bloodyminded -

You jest but even though scientists don't get rich they do earn a living. And if there weren't a "crisis", real or feigned, there wouldn't be much research. They'd lose their raison d'etre.

Even if the globe wasn't warming they would still be doing the exact same research, IE how different variations affect climate. Which could and has lead to some very important discoveries. Some of which are usable now some of which won't be usable for a long time coming. There seems to be a notion that all research is done like the Manhattan project. Research being done specifically to make something, well a lot of research is done without a clear sign of what it would be useful for, or even whether it will be useful at all. Most scientists when asking for research grants aren't saying "oh I think I've found something that will help with X, Y, or Z they've found something interesting and want to look into it further. This is way many of the most important discoveries where accidental. These are some of the more extreme cases of important accidental discoveries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...