Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Monbiot on wicked energy companies | Main | Green reviews of the year »
Tuesday
Dec282010

Comedy of errors

The New American has been taken to task by Simon Dunford, the press officer of UEA. New American had been discussing the relationship between CRU and the Met Office

The Met Office works closely with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which made headlines last year at the center of "Climategate." That scandal involved a number of forecasters in Britain involved in fraudulent reporting of data to forward their own climate-change agenda.

I think it may be reasonable of UEA to take issue with the word "fraudulent", which is not really a particularly accurate summary of the allegations. However, Dunford chose to respond as follows:

We are extremely surprised at the inaccurate and defamatory claim in the final paragrah [sic].... Our scientists were exonerated of any dishonesty or malpractice by a series of independent reviews.... Readers of your article would not know that they had been cleared of any such accusations.

Dunford's response seems a mistake to me, opening up the question of the credibiliity of the inquiries, when concentrating on the question of "fraudulent reporting of data" would have done the job just as well. New American has now been able to responsd in turn with a further article looking at the work of Russell and Oxburgh. Your truly is cited in the process.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (109)

@ Lazarus

" I am open to any credible information you or anyone else presents."

No, you're not. If you can look carefully at the conduct and scope of these investigations and *not* get offended by their obvious inadequacy and blatant bias, then there's nothing that others in this place - many smart people here, note, and the very opposite of your 'conspiracy nut jobs' - can offer that will make one iota of difference to what you say you believe.

BTW, I remember that Lazarus rose from the dead. That wouldn't be from the ruins of a dead bed, by any chance? Just trying to get all my trolls in a row.

Dec 30, 2010 at 8:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

"There is no credible evidence in any of this. If it was, why isn't every honest scientist, politician, university board member etc. ranting about it in the way you are?"

The real worry is if they are!

Dec 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Richard Drake

I understand that the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick were challenging the scientists, who from the emails were clearly obstructive and should not have been. Jones comes across as childish and even vindictive in blocking information. But McIntyre and McKitrick are not climate scientists and I doubt if they ever intended to do much with the data they were after. Wasn’t it McIntyre who published an open request form on his blog encouraging readers to insert random countries and then ask for this information from CRU? This was also childish and vindictive and was clearly against any sprit in the FOI legislation. I used to read his blog from time to time but after this he lost all respect.

But none of the enquiries was intended to look at the science, that is what peer review is for. All the papers, and now the data, are available for criticism but there have been no credible challenge to the science or scientific methods.

Jockdownsouth

I am a first time poster on this site but wonder away by all means.

Bishop Hill

I did look at the report some time ago when it first came out and I willing to look at it again, even in more detail if you want, just give a link.

But I have a serious problem with it. Posters on here have been suggesting that the other inquiries were flawed because they used people with ‘vested interests masquerading as independent review board’s, but someone who does a report for a group that denies climate change is a problem and has already written much and a book saying much the same and calling some of the science an illusion hardly fits the criteria of independence that they call for and I would expect as a sceptic.

The main reason that prompted my first post was a claim that all the other inquires (but not yours I’m sure) are a proven white wash, remains unanswered. I have seen no credible evidence of such and if it existed I would expect such to make real headlines since governments, education establishments, industries and more would all be involved.

JerryM

You have made it apparent that you don’t trust the results of the inquiries, except the Bishops I suspect, but you have never substantiated your claim that they are well proven white washes. You have given nothing credible to suggest why all the board members from both sides of the pond have some common vested interests in not outing the fraud you seem to believe took place. So it does just look like conspiracy theory nonsense to me and I suspect any truly rational and sceptical thinkers. But if your ‘proofs’ exist present them and I will give my opinion.

Dec 30, 2010 at 9:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Lazarus

The interests of the panel members cannot be used to demonstrate a whitewash although they can be suggestive of reasons why a whitewash might be desirable in some quarters. The whitewash is demonstrated by the failure of the panels to investigate important allegations or their exonerating the CRU scientists without evidence to do so.

For example, the Keenan fraud allegation was not examined. Jones was exonerated of the McKitrick fabrication allegation despite the fact that no defence was offered. The allegation of breach of peer review confidentiality was not examined, despite evidence that this had occurred and despite it having been brought to the attention of the Russell panel by one of their advisers. Etc etc.

The report is here. I'm struck by your earlier statement that there is "no evidence" of a whitewash. Surely the documents cited in the report are some evidence?

Dec 30, 2010 at 10:10 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Just read this thread.

@Lazarus
"If this [Congressional testimony] happens to Mann it will be like another Scopes Monkey Trial.

The outcome of this will be that every time scientists publish research that is politically unacceptable they will be hauled before the judiciary and bullied into recanting. If it is applied to climatology it can just as easily be applied to other areas of science like evolution, physics and medicine."

Too late. Skeptics are already making moves to bring Mann, Hansen, et al, for trial, conviction and imprisonment. Since scientific evidence has deliberately been distorted to fit a certain political agenda, skeptics have been left with no choice but to propose new laws for the criminal trial of top CAGW scientists in America on charges of some kind of crime against humanity. Here is what a professor of law says:

We may not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/01/climate-science-disinformation-crime

Oh, no, wait! That is Associate Professor of Law at Penn State University, Donald Brown. He wants CAGW skeptics to be tried and possibly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

Whether Micheal Mann sent an email to his Penn State colleague to remind him that such absurd criminalisation of bad scientific conduct might land the leading climate scientists in the dock, nobody knows. It would be a good question to ask Mann when he is dragged before the Congress to testify under oath.

Judiciary's involvement in scientific matters must be opposed. But politicians, who hold the purse strings and are accountable to the public, have every right to call scientists to account. Let's never forget that it is CAGW cultists who politicised the science, and it is they who want to try CAGW skeptics.

Dec 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

@ Lazarus

"if your ‘proofs’ exist present them and I will give my opinion."

The Bishop (Dec 30, 2010 at 10:10 AM) gives you three examples of the panels' failure to properly review the issue. There's no ambiguity there, these are simple facts, and for many of us here they are part of what constitutes 'proven whitewash'.

So forget your 'conspiracy' nonsense, and instead just let us know whether or not - in your opinion - these examples could well indicate that the reviews in question were not entirely adequate, unbiased and thorough.

A straight answer to that straight question would be appreciated, and we can all then move on.

Dec 30, 2010 at 11:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

“ The whitewash is demonstrated by the failure of the panels to investigate important allegations or their exonerating the CRU scientists without evidence to do so.”

Sorry but where I come from innocence is presumed, not guilt. Just because the panels did not investigate every accusation is not proof of anything.

I am looking at your report now but at 50 odd pages it may be a while before I post anything, though I though you might have addressed my concerns about it’s lack of impartiality.

Dec 30, 2010 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

JerryM

You seem to have little understanding of what credible proof is. What it is not is your opinion that the panels failed to review things to your satisfaction.

I will get back after re familiarising myself with Montford's report.

Dec 30, 2010 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Sorry but where I come from innocence is presumed, not guilt.

Agreed but they did have a case to answer which was only investigated with evidence from one side.

Just because the panels did not investigate every accusation is not proof of anything.

So its ok not to ask Jones if he deleted emails or why he asked others to delete their emails.

Dec 30, 2010 at 11:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of fresh air

"Just because the panels did not investigate every accusation is not proof of anything."

Actually it is. It indicates lack of thoroughness in investigating allegations.
And when that has happened over and over, that is what amounts to a whitewash.

Why else would Lord Turnbull describe the inquiries as having been "more Widgery than Saville”?

Widgery was seen as having been a whitewash inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings in Northern Ireland in 1972 (as it largely exonerated the soldiers involved). When Saville published his findings of a subsequent inquiry earlier this year it led to an apology by the British Prime Minister.

Dec 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

@ Lazarus

"You seem to have little understanding of what credible proof is."

Actually in my job I need quite a lot of that. But in any event I didn't ask for your assessment of my qualifications, I asked for your answer to an unambiguous question.

"... just let us know whether or not - in your opinion - these examples could well indicate that the reviews in question were not entirely adequate, unbiased and thorough."

Does this indicate that you may actually get around to answering that at some stage?

"I will get back after re familiarising myself with Montford's report."

In case you weren't aware, Bishop Hill *is* Andrew Montford and you are here as his guest. So if you do post again, your acknowledgement of that may go some way towards ensuring that your opinions will be listened to and debated with politely.

Dec 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

Lazarus is no first time poster here, or anywhere else.

Lazarus has a website. It's bizarre. http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2010/12/gods-verses-unicorns.html

He would have you believe his ramblings are cogent and well reasoned, but the comments sections are devoid of content. Much like its author's egregious scribblings.

Dec 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPerry

You have no more evidence that the investigations were a white wash than anything else

Other than that they avoided virtually all important questions. Including, eg, asking Jones whether or not he had deleted emails, for fear that the answer would make him guilty of a criminal offence.

The UEA paid for and appointed those who were to investigate it. Kind of like the police looking into charges of police brutality - you know in advance what findings such stooges will come up with. The burden of proof in such cases lies with those who would argue they were NOT whitewashes.

What evidence is there that the British government at the time and it's opposition parties needed a white wash for example?
For some time now they have all been beating the drum for green taxes.

Dec 30, 2010 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

matthu
"Actually it is. It indicates lack of thoroughness in investigating allegations.
And when that has happened over and over, that is what amounts to a whitewash."

No it doesn't it just amounts to lack of thoroughness - if such thoroughness is actually part of the remit.

Deliberately hiding or covering up evidence amounts to a white wash but there is absolutely no evidence to support that.

Dec 31, 2010 at 2:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

JerryM

"... just let us know whether or not - in your opinion - these examples could well indicate that the reviews in question were not entirely adequate, unbiased and thorough."

No review, no matter what it is looking at could be considered entirely adequate, and thorough. I see no evidence of intentional bias.

Dec 31, 2010 at 2:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Perry

Thanks for that but personally I find that immature ad hom comments do not further adult debate.

Still don't give up, you may actually make a comment that is on topic if you keep trying - even by accident.

Dec 31, 2010 at 2:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

A rational, critical review of The Climategate Inquiries, from a sceptic.

It is clear from this report that it has no interest in finding the truth. It is solely interested in finding something wrong. But there is so little evidence of misdemeanours so the ‘serious’ findings are almost entirely disingenuous and insinuation.

From the Foreword it claims that the ‘consequences for the credibility of climate change science would be immense’. How? Climate science does not hinge on the work done at CRU and even reading the ‘serious allegations’ in the Foreword, none of them actually questions the science already published. Although it might be considered worded to give that impression.

After trying to whip up hysteria it states; “One would therefore have expected the relevant “authorities”, Government/Parliament, the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Royal Society, to have moved fast and decisively to get to the bottom of the matter.”

I agree with this entirely. If things were as the Foreword alludes to then these people should have moved fast and decisively, the problem is that the most qualified people to judge didn’t agree. I’m not suggesting that the mis-management of FOIs was not serious and clearly happened but again the admin failings of a university department and some of it’s staffs belligerent attitude to the importance of meeting such requests is not evidence of anything other than poor systems and attitudes. But at least Turnbull gives us a basic list of baddies that must somehow be involved in the white wash conspiracy if only rational people wouldn't keep asking for actual evidence of it.

It then gives six bullet pointed ‘serious flaws’ reported by Andrew Montford, but even if all are completely true I can’t see any of these ‘serious flaws’ calling the science into question.

As to the actual findings;

In turns it claims that Phil Willis, Lord Oxbridge, members of Sir Muir Russell’s team and Panel members were unsuitable but with no evidence, just innuendo.

Like it or not, there is almost no person who would be qualified as a chairman who doesn’t accept the scientific opinion of the worlds national academies on climate change and see others rejection of it as denial. It is not evidence that Willis was unfit for purpose.

It was apparent from the start that Oxburgh thought some would claim he had conflicts of interest but these were in no way hidden and it is disingenuous to assume that Oxburgh would not do his job with integrity. I suspect if his findings gave what skeptics wanted all the green groups would be suggesting exactly the same unsuitablity because he was a chairman of Shell.

It was also disingenuous to assume that Kerry Emanuel prejudged the inquiry findings. Emanuel was one of the most qualified to investigate the conduct of these scientists. Just because he accepts the science, and has published some of it himself, it does not mean he wouldn’t find fault with other scientists.

In truth it is almost inconceivable that the most qualified people for the task would not have some connections to the university and the science. This is not evidence that they lacked integrity or that they were compromised. Since the inquiries were not tasked with looking into if the published science was correct, there was no need to have a skeptic on the panels even if a suitability qualified one could be found.

We know that with the general election looming, the scope of the Select Committee’s work was extremely limited but this is not indicative that they did not have enough time to satisfy themselves that there was little to be concerned about at CRU other than reported.

The ‘Climategate Inquiries’ also makes claims about the Committee misunderstanding Peiser’s evidence and that it failed to investigate Keenan’s fraud allegation made against Jones. Keenan is not even a scientist. I’m sure the committee with its limited time treated unqualified submissions with as much rigour as they could afford. This might seem a hard thing to say but this now happened over a year ago and with hindsight, if there really was any compelling evidence of fraud shouldn’t someone have supported Keenan’s and Peiser’s cases and championed their cause by now?

Worryingly it also states that the Committee appears to have exonerated Jones of the charge of fabrication without any evidence to justify such a conclusion.

Guilty before innocence? Nuff said.

More than once it suggests that scientists have left out or cherry picked data which is unfounded. This is almost all about the ‘hide the decline’, chronologies and what is termed of ad-hoc bodging of data.

Even Lawson accepted the ‘hide the decline’ explanation during questioning – why is this not mentioned in this report? ‘Important information’ is also a value judgement and it is unlikely that policymakers would need to know or even understand more than they were given.

Unfortunately we are talking about concerned unqualified critics – an economist apparently. The decision what to include is a scientific one, not one that gives an answer more like what you want it to be. I believe that Briffa has justified his selection in his work. Why would you think a review panel like this should undermine peer review? Why would the Select Committee need to know how scientists decided to tackle a problem? The Panel explicitly stated that was not part of the remit.

BTW I cannot find the quoted “fudge factors” and “artificial adjustments” any where in the Climategate document data base so if they do exist I haven’t managed to check the context, or if it was anything other than just scientists doing what scientists do.

There is clear innuendo about threats to journals with no attempt made to obtain evidence from the journal editors. But the journals were capable of submitting evidence – it isn’t as if they wouldn’t have known about it. Why wouldn’t they if they thought there was any case to answer?

More un-evidenced insinuation occurs when talking about papers selected, hinting that Jones cherry picked them and this was wrong. The Royal Society made it clear that it OKed the papers as a representative sample. Why should Oxburgh doubt the RS’s integrity? Why shouldn’t the RS agree with CRU about the papers initially chosen? The suggestion that Jones hand picked the papers with the clear implication that there was something to hide in others is unsupported by any evidence.

Even now anyone could select any paper and review it. In fact there is a chance to gather some real evidence here if it truly exists. Find a paper that wasn’t reviewed and where its conclusions didn’t ‘represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data’ which was all they were looking at. The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct. That is the job of peer review, and papers whether criticised or not have been through peer review. Being critical of papers is part of the scientific process not the inquiry one.

There is a finding that; “The Panel’s conclusions that criticisms of CRU were ‘selective’ and ‘uncharitable’ appear to be baseless since there is no record of these criticisms having been examined”.

That is not how it reads to me. A larger selection of the report puts it into context;
“We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the endroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted.”

So SOME of the criticism show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. Why do they have to exhaustively review the external criticism to make that conclusion? It also mentions the ‘lack of awareness’, ie ignorance of the science by those requesting the information. An important point I think, that not included.

A big deal is made of the claim that the Committee chairman refused to reveal how decisions had been reached. I’m not sure what bearing this has. I doubt it is common practice for committees to publish such information to the degree suggested. Certainly no jury would be expecting to reveal such things so I don’t see why an inquiry should be different and it could certainly be counter productive.

Much of the rest of the ‘serious findings’ just amount to criticism about the inquiry process. What is the issue with this? The reports were commission by the University, Select Committee etc., for their own benefit and to their own criteria. You can be critical of the approach used but it is not evidence of anything other than they selected a process that others might not.

Conclusion;

Nothing suggests a ‘White wash’. Even if the findings were all true and un biased – which as I have already mentioned I have serious doubts about – they only suggest a lack of rigour and professionalism or a different choice of method. However I suspect that when looking for the very worst in something, every inquiry ever done could be said to have similar short comings.

So am I missing something? There is no proof of white wash, conspiracy or whatever. Not investigating something or not doing it properly or using the methods others prefer is not proof that it was done with any intention to hide, cover up or white wash. If we accept as Monford and Turnbull seem to, that all inquiries were so flawed as to constitute deliberate white washes, then we must assume a conspiracy and if we also add the other inquires done in the US because of these release emails we have a conspiracy of monumental proportions.

So now we have a working theory of an international conspiracy to white wash dodgy scientists clean, we now need the evidence to support it. As far as I can see ‘The Climategate Inquiries’ does not contain that. Nor does it even suggest why such a conspiracy might be perpetrated by Governments, politicians, scientists, industrialists, universities and scientific societies on the unsuspecting population of the world.

To be taken seriously claims need evidence and in this case as Carl Sagan would have said; Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Dec 31, 2010 at 2:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Lazarus,

The UEA paid for and appointed those who were to investigate it. Kind of like the police looking into charges of police brutality - you know in advance what findings such compliant stooges will come up with.

What we need are independent investigations - ie not stage-managed by UEA or its government sympathisers, all apologists and no critics; something with a 50-50 split. A judicial enquiry is perhaps the best bet hope for a semblence of justice here.

Dec 31, 2010 at 5:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Lazarus

You are very funny.

Dec 31, 2010 at 8:13 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

A few responses to Lazarus's long post:

I’m not suggesting that the mis-management of FOIs was not serious and clearly happened but again the admin failings of a university department and some of it’s staffs belligerent attitude to the importance of meeting such requests is not evidence of anything other than poor systems and attitudes.

You seem think "poor attitudes" is not a major issue. In fact it's the whole problem - a wholesale belligerance towards openness. Likewise the mere "poor attitude" of the Climategate authors in their self-documented endeavours to sabotage the science process, and the mere "poor attitude" of the whitewashers in failing to come down hard on this "Why should I show you my data when I know you'll try and find something wrong with it" approach characteristic of the IPCC cadre.

It was apparent from the start that Oxburgh ... had conflicts of interest but these were in no way hidden and it is disingenuous to assume that Oxburgh would not do his job with integrity.

No, it's disingenous to assume he would. (Why else do you think they chose him?)

It was also disingenuous to assume that Kerry Emanuel prejudged the inquiry findings. Emanuel was one of the most qualified to investigate the conduct of these scientists. Just because he accepts the science, and has published some of it himself, it does not mean he wouldn’t find fault with other scientists.

You do not need special "qualifications" to look into basic cheating and bias, eg trying to prevent publication of ideas you don't like, hiding data and code, etc.
And if Emanuel is in the same (state) funding stream that "the science" is in, there is every reason to believe he would not find fault with others in the same stream. This is clearly a big factor in the alleged "consensus".

So now we have a working theory of an international conspiracy to white wash dodgy scientists clean ... why [might] such a conspiracy ... be perpetrated by Governments, politicians, scientists, industrialists, universities and scientific societies on the unsuspecting population of the world.

A mere strawman conspiracy; in fact it is just the climate establishment routinely defending its position and interests.
The motivation is obvious. We live in an increasingly totalitarian age (more and more government), and politicians and government employees - both of various stripes - are always on the lookout for more justifications to tax and control us. These same governments also fund and select close to 100% of climate science, and scientists know which side their bread is buttered - so we have here a lethal "positive feedback loop", mutual back-scratching by politicians and their chosen scientists, at the expense of the public interest.

Indeed, for this to not be the case, would require an international "angelic" conspiracy - one where many scientists would risk their careers and funding by speaking out. An international conspiracy you subscribe to?

Dec 31, 2010 at 8:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Lazarus - you seem to have a liking for evidence. Can you please provide some evidence that in any of the inquiries, Prof Jones was asked if he actually deleted emails (as he advised others in the team to do, in clear breach of the FOI law, and the principals of integrity and transparency)?

For you to maintain that the inquiries were not a whitewash confirms that you are an extremely gullible individual. Invested in any carbon credits recently?

Dec 31, 2010 at 8:28 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they actually stated that they deliberately didn't ask this crucial question at the heart of the whole integrity and basic honesty issue, for fear that Jones would thereby open himself up to prosecution.

And when asked about his "Why should I show you my data when I know you'll try and find something wrong with it", he was allowed to wriggle away without directly answering.

If that isn't whitewashing, what is?

Dec 31, 2010 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Definition of whitewash:
to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whitewash

The investigations sought to exonerate the CRU employees.

Definition of perfunctory:
characterized by routine or superficiality

Very few people would argue the investigations were anything but superficial if they failed to address the most serious allegations e.g. fraud, deletion of emails to frustrate FOI requests

Very few people would argue that a 5 page report was anything but superficial.

"Even now anyone could select any paper and review it. In fact there is a chance to gather some real evidence here if it truly exists. Find a paper that wasn’t reviewed and where its conclusions didn’t ‘represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data’ which was all they were looking at."

This is what the fraud allegation is about.

http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf

Dec 31, 2010 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Lazarus,

I'm interested to learn why you think your website gets much less traffic than Bishop Hill. You do seem to spend more time here than tending your own patch. Even after I provided a link to your gods & unicorns diatribe, the comments score remains resolutely at zero.

I guess you're lonely and need the social stimulation engendered within these pages. A word of warning though! You continue to crave constant rejection.That's not the sign of a healthy mind.

Dec 31, 2010 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterPerry

@ Lazarus

"a lack of rigour and professionalism" is precisely what I DON'T want when the proposed responses to the 'science' are profound societal changes at huge on-cost to me, my children and my grandchildren.

You can take every word & graph from any old mongrel wearing a 'Scientist' badge as gospel if you want, but I venture to suggest that that won't earn you too much respect from present company, however gently they may be treating you at your first appearance.

We all learn from genuine debate, but attempting interaction with a mind as resolutely closed as yours takes nobody any further forward. So to the Bishop's "funny" I would add "disappointing".

Dec 31, 2010 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

Bishop Hill aka Mr. Monford.

Well it wasn’t my intention to be humours, just to show that contrary to all the pseudo-skeptics that seem to congregate here there is no evidence of a conspiracy/white wash.

Is it your usual modus-operandi to respond to critical considered posts with one liners? At least you haven’t denied my conclusions. Your report was purely to find fault because the others didn’t. But having so little to go on and no ‘smoking gun’ your ‘serious findings’ are almost exclusively insinuation.

When the pretend sceptics on here decry the alleged bias and motives of the other panels, they seem OK and accepting of a review done by man whose bias was never in question. If any of these reports were going to have serious flaws it was always going to be yours because your belief in the scientist’s wrong doing was never in doubt.

Any true sceptics should have alarm bells ringing like Quasimodo just from the thought of it.


Punksta

“The UEA paid for and appointed those who were to investigate it. Kind of like the police looking into charges of police brutality”

That is entirely correct but the reason was that there wasn’t enough evidence or interest for other organisations to get involved. The Commons Select Committee jumped in with its little inquiry but there was never going to be the ‘trial’ the skeptics apparently still want.

BTW – Police do investigate police, it doesn’t prove that they are certain to cover up for their colleagues crimes.

“What we need are independent investigations - ie not stage-managed by UEA or its government sympathisers, all apologists and no critics; something with a 50-50 split. A judicial enquiry is perhaps the best bet hope for a semblence of justice here.”

I quite understand that is what you want but not getting it isn’t evidence of a conspiracy.

“You seem think "poor attitudes" is not a major issue.”

No I don’t want to give that impression. These emails showed some of the scientists in a very bad light personality wise. I used words like ‘belligerent’ and ‘poor’ for a reason’. But my first post on here was to correct the falsehood that a white wash was ‘well proven’. Being protective and un-sharing of their data was wrong – but that is exactly what the enquiry concluded. But this isn’t evidence of flawed science.

I don’t agree with your sentiment that they endeavoured to sabotage the science process. There isn’t any compelling evidence of this and saying the ‘white washer’ should have come down harder shows some bias on your part. A white wash is deliberate and requires real proof. How hard they came down was a value judgement that was never going to please everyone, but their powers to act were very limited in any case as these emails were not the smoking gun the anti-climate change community first claimed. Over stating the case from the start may have even worked against coming down hard.

“No, it's disingenuous to assume he would. (Why else do you think they chose him?)”

I think you mean ‘wouldn’t’, but I don’t agree. His choice was a matter for the University in any case.

“You do not need special "qualifications" to look into basic cheating and bias, eg trying to prevent publication of ideas you don't like, hiding data and code, etc.”

There is no evidence that they hid data and code. Apparently everything they can release is all out there now and it seems to have made no difference to any of the science. But you do need qualified people. You need people who understand if such activities are common place. It might seem wrong to us but if scientists don’t routinely release data or are deliberately unhelpful to none scientists then we need someone who understands this. Otherwise it becomes a case of finding a scapegoat with many other researches with the same flawed attitudes.

“And if Emanuel is in the same (state) funding stream that "the science" is in, there is every reason to believe he would not find fault with others in the same stream”.

No there isn’t because his funding does not depend on this. It is a scientists responsibility to find fault with others work. This is the whole foundation of peer review. Just because someone perceives ‘an old boys network’ doesn’t mean it undermines the integrity of every scientist in related fields. Assuming it does is very disingenuous. However taking your own comment about the police and your 'conspiracy' theory (comments below) to its logical conclusion means that no scientist should ever be involved in investigating another.

“A mere strawman conspiracy; in fact it is just the climate establishment routinely defending its position and interests.”

No it isn’t a straw man. There have been about five different reports, not including Monford's from different groups across countries, and they all broadly come to the same conclusion. It is not a straw man to realise that any ‘white wash’ must be international in nature and include many different groups. I have asked on here why The Parliamentary Select Committee for science would white wash. What reason would MPs from the Government and its opposition parities have in colluding? Whatever the answer, if a credible one exists, it must also include the worlds universities and national societies of science. This white wash extends well outside any notion you have that it’s just the ‘climate establishment’ defending its interests.

“ We live in an increasingly totalitarian age (more and more government), and politicians and government employees - both of various stripes - are always on the lookout for more justifications to tax and control us. These same governments also fund and select close to 100% of climate science, and scientists know which side their bread is buttered - so we have here a lethal "positive feedback loop", mutual back-scratching by politicians and their chosen scientists, at the expense of the public interest.”

Now that is a true conspiracy theory! There is no need for an "angelic conspiracy”. You are assuming that almost every scientist from every country on the planet is only interested in keeping their jobs which are so tenuous in every research position that to actually do their job, i.e. real science, would have them on job seekers. This has to include Russian, Chinese, Israeli scientists etc., all afraid that their pay check will stop unless they do shoddy work. Of course at this point the true conspiracy fantasist will claim the Russians are in on it, the Chinese just want UN money and the Israelis like KFC.

And you also have to factor in that unless climatologists have a different genetic make up, then almost every scientific researcher on the planet must think the same. Every piece of research published regardless of which field, medicine, cosmology, psychology, dentistry, engineering et al, is only published with that all important funding in mind and nothing must ever jeopardise that.

And we have every national academy and society in the world going along with it as well. If anyone can come up with a credible motive for this lets hear it.

Even if every researcher in academia is on the devils side of your conspiracy most scientists have long left working for universities and there is plenty of alternative funding from industry. Industries that would benefit from climate chance being down played.

“Lazarus - you seem to have a liking for evidence.”

Shouldn’t you?

“Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they actually stated that they deliberately didn't ask this crucial question at the heart of the whole integrity and basic honesty issue, for fear that Jones would thereby open himself up to prosecution”.

I don’t remember hearing anything about this but if you have a link with it in context I will have a look. It seems an odd admission if it actually reads like you state.


matthu

“The investigations sought to exonerate the CRU employees.”

No they didn’t, but that was pretty much the conclusion of them all.

“This is what the fraud allegation is about.”

And how has that allegation been progressing in the last year? Any compelling evidence come to light to get Wei-Chyung Wang and Jones in front of a review board or even in a police cell?


Perry

“I'm interested to learn why you think your website gets much less traffic than Bishop Hill.”

Well I am somewhat surprised that your interest has lasted longer than that of a Goldfish, but to answer your question I think it is the same reason as why NASA also gets a lot more hits.
http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2010/11/first-post-why.html

However I have a sneaky suspicion that my traffic is being hijack by a secret society of government hackers and used in some way to boost Sarah Palin’s popularity.

You could help me prove this. You are welcome to comment on my blog if you have run out of other places to post your wearisome words.


JerryM

“You can take every word & graph from any old mongrel wearing a 'Scientist' badge as gospel if you want”

But I don’t. I just accept the position of the National academies of science. I’m not arrogant to think I’m better qualified or know better than them. If they start to say climate change is a crock then that is what I will accept. I try not to have any preconceived beliefs or biases, I am not 'Green' in any real sense.

But it is interesting that you actually do seem to be taking the word of from any old mongrel wearing a 'Scientist' badge or even not wearing one if you think they are telling you what you want to hear.

Dec 31, 2010 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Lazarus

No I don't usually respond with one liners, but I found your post so absurd that I didn't want to waste any time on it. Sorry.

Dec 31, 2010 at 2:08 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

@ Lazurus.

Perfect! Nail on the head!

"if you think they are telling you what you want to hear."

Actually I just try think for myself, whereas you:

"I just accept the position of the National academies of science. I’m not arrogant to think I’m better qualified or know better than them. If they start to say climate change is a crock then that is what I will accept."

don't.

Perhaps we could just leave it at that.

Dec 31, 2010 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

Bishop,

What are you saying?
That you wrote your review of the inquires was done with an with an open and unbiased mind?
Believing that the Hockey stick graph was an illusion could never have clouded your judgement?


JerryM

The trouble with always thinking for yourself is that you can be wrong, and in the case of disagreeing with every science academy in the world, most likely are.

No doubt you self medicate too. Always taking anything the Lancet, and the like, say with a pinch of salt. Good luck with that.

Dec 31, 2010 at 3:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Nope. I'm saying that the evidence is there in black and white. You don't see it that way. Fine with me. I just dont think your analysis is worth expending any time on because I don't think you are going to convince anyone.

Dec 31, 2010 at 3:39 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Coming back from the dead has it downsides obviously.

Dec 31, 2010 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of fresh air

Lazurus,

You accept that the UEA paid for and appointed those who were to investigate it, but say there wasn't enough evidence or interest for other organisations to get involved.

So Climategate emails confirming that data and code was delierately being hidden, urging that emails be deleted, that lies should be told about seqeuence of events, etc etc, is not enough evidence?
In my book that would warrant immediate dismissal. Instead, Jones has been promoted.

And as for interest from other organisations, any number of volunteers would happily have done it. All that would be needed is for the UEA to require its staff to submit themselves to such outside scrutiny. That they instead choose stooges says it all - they understandably acted to give preference to advancing their own interests, rather than finding the truth. My preferred option is still full judicial enquiry.

Your suggestion that I claim a conspiracy is a well-worn strawman - indeed you are the one claiming an (Angelic) Conspiracy - they they would ever voluntarily put truth above their own interests. (more below).

---
You say you agree poor attitudes IS a major issue, but that this isn't evidence of flawed science.

That's like saying a court case where only one side has the facts, isn't a flawed one.
--

You don't agree that they endeavoured to sabotage the science process.

What then do you call hiding data, working to keep alternative thinknig out of journals, deleting emails etc etc?
---
you> There is no evidence that they hide data and code.

There's plenty. McIntyre had been requesting it for years, a fact alluded to in the emails.
--
You say you need qualified people to asses the hiding of data etc. "It might seem wrong to us but if scientists don't routinely release data or are deliberately unhelpful to none scientists then we need someone who understands this".

If publicly funded science routinely hides data from the public, that does not justify it. And you do not need qualifications to assess this. Any more than for assessing the routine mugging of old ladies.
--
me> And if Emanuel is in the same (state) funding stream that "the science" is in, there is every reason to believe he would not find fault with others in the same stream.

you> No there isn't because his funding does not depend on this.

He who decides which piper to pay need not openly state his real reasons. Whoever decides what science to fund, thereby imparts his own bias, even if unconsciously.
--

Me> We live in an increasingly totalitarian age (more and more government), and politicians and government employees - both of various stripes - are always on the lookout for more justifications to tax and control us. These same governments also fund and select close to 100% of climate science, and scientists know which side their bread is buttered - so we have here a lethal "positive feedback loop", mutual back-scratching by politicians and their chosen scientists, at the expense of the public interest.

You> Now that is a true conspiracy theory!

Yes, again made of the finest straw. So no, they are simply acting in their own self-interest; no collusion or secrecy needed. Which means, as mentioned, you are the one with a conspiracy theory - an Angelic one - that has all these groups acting against their own interests in favour of the truth. How do you explain this?

you> You are assuming that almost every scientist from every country on the planet is only interested in keeping their jobs which are so tenuous in every research position that to actually do their job, i.e. real science, would have them on job seekers. This has to include Russian, Chinese, Israeli scientists etc., all afraid that their pay check will stop unless they do shoddy work. Of course at this point the true conspiracy fantasist will claim the Russians are in on it, the Chinese just want UN money and the Israelis like KFC.

The conspiracy strawman again. Of course scientists are worried about keeping their jobs. Just like a anyone else. So they do what they need to keep them. And bearing in mind they were selected up-front for their qualities and views, this need not involve them saying things they don't agree with.
As for the international dimension, all goverments have a roughly parallel position in each country, hence their interests roughly coincide.

--
you> And you also have to factor in that unless climatologists have a different genetic make up, then almost every scientific researcher on the planet must think the same.

Nothing to do with genetics. Lots to do with allocation of funds and selection of scientists.

you> And we have every national academy and society in the world going along with it as well. If anyone can come up with a credible motive for this lets hear it.

Why does acting in their own interest require an explanation or motive? It's why they would not - your Angelic Comspiracy - that requires an explanation.
--
you> Even if every researcher in academia is on the devils side of your conspiracy most scientists have long left working for universities and there is plenty of alternative funding from industry.

Not much really. Governments spend many orders of magnitude more money on climate science than industry does. Hence the phoney consensus.


you> Industries .. would benefit from climate [change] being down played.

Virtually everyone would, everyone except the vast alarmist industry in and supported by government.
But certainly oil would. Finance wouldn't. Given the massive government propaganda effort for alarmism, most others are falling over themselves to appear green.

Jan 2, 2011 at 1:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Punksta,

“So Climategate emails confirming that data and code was delierately being hidden, urging that emails be deleted, that lies should be told about seqeuence of events, etc etc, is not enough evidence? “

Perhaps I haven’t been keeping up to date but I am not aware of any compelling evidence for anything you have just claimed. There was a request to delete emails but you can’t just assume that this was not only done but that they contained something incriminating. Hiding code and data? I’m only aware of them not sharing it with everyone who asked for it, which didn’t include actual climate scientists and researchers. No idea about what you are referring to about lies and the sequence of events. Please expand.

“All that would be needed is for the UEA to require its staff to submit themselves to such outside scrutiny”.

Why should they when there was no requirement for them to even have the investigation they did? Calling the panel they did appoint ‘stooges’ is a value judgement showing your own bias.

“My preferred option is still full judicial enquiry.”

I’m sure it is. But the contents of these emails do not warrant it in the minds of anyone other than those who have already decided, without any compelling evidence, that CRU have done something much more serious that has already been discovered.

“indeed you are the one claiming an (Angelic) Conspiracy “

I’m not claiming any conspiracy. But for things to be as you claim, a massive international conspiracy to deceive must exist. The fact that you had to invent a counter conspiracy to justify your flawed thinking is very revealing. Believing in one must be the only way you can over look the irrationality of your own position that is unreasonable on many levels;

1) You must believe that all scientists (and therefore people) will never do the right thing and only operate purely out of a self interest, with no ethics or integrity (except the ones that agree with you I suppose – you must assume they are exceptional).

I doubt I know anyone like this and unless your are and assume everyone must be like you I doubt you know many people like the type you need all scientists to be.

2) You must believe that scientists all see their own self interest as money, not knowledge, not publishing research that challenges their peers, not to become known as someone who has pushed the boundaries of their field.

I say that most scientific researchers (just like most people I know) are people of integrity. They do research to publish knowledge that is new and previously unknown. Doing anything different IS against their self interest. Money is not their primary driver because it isn’t what they entered in to research for.

So you must seriously believe that almost every scientist isn’t really interested in doing any real research, just getting paid to tell you what they think their funders want?

Why isn't there thousands of these, frightened for their jobs, scientists, anonymously telling the world that they are forced into misleading the world with dodgy data and giving the real evidence against AGW? Why are they not revealing the real smoking guns instead of releasing insipid emails that most people can ignore?

3) You must believe that governments are the main source of science funding – they aren’t. Most scientists work and research in industry and even most of the funding in universities is industry backed.

4) You must assume that whatever funding comes from the worlds governments, they choose on what projects it is spent – they usually don’t. It is the universities themselves that allocate the funds and ask for specific funding. It isn't every government in the world spending money trying to fool their population that something is a problem that isn’t.

5) You must have somehow convinced yourself that this faked research has existed for decades at every level, and even covered up by scientists that need funding for non climate related research. How would that be in their self interest?

6) I don’t know how much you know about students doing a science degree but most have to do some basic research and submit it as their dissertation. Every year there must be thousands of students in this country, and maybe hundreds of thousands worldwide that do their dissertation in a subject relating to climate change or global warming – it is a hot topic if you excuse the pun. Why don’t most of these students find evidence of fakery? The only logical explanation is that they don’t.

You must somehow believe they too have acted out of self interest,perhaps to get a pass mark and been told by their tutors that no mater where the evidence leads they must conclude that AGW is real.

So you must believe that all these science tutors, many who don’t rely on research funding and most who aren’t directly involved in climate science of any kind are in on it as well. Or do you have some sort of ‘self interest’ for these people too? I am certain that at least the many students who fail every year and appeal would be crying out that they were told what results were expected of them.

7) You must believe that all science journals are also involved in your cover up. Why would other scientists need to keep alternative papers out? The journal staff (usually all with good science degrees) must be in on this cover up from their Uni days.

8) You must believe that for scientists to keep their jobs it means not doing their jobs but instead faking and falsifying research (which is where your logic leads) and turning a blind eye to all other research in their fields which must be similarly flawed. Do you really believe your version is the way all scientific research is done?

9) You must believe that Russia wouldn’t have published research that conflicted with the US research into global warming during the Cold War. That China and India had no concerns that any international treaty for climate change would have put pressure on their industrialisation. That they funded their scientists for results that could have the UN calling form them to decarbonise their industries.

10) You must believe that Opposition parties in any country in the world would not have funded, published and used science that conflicts with the current government of the time? Many politicians have science degrees, some are even scientists. During the last three decades or more Britain, the US and most countries in Europe have politically gone from Right to Left and back. You must believe that they all decided that scientific funding in to global warming should all have a similar conclusion – that it is happening and is mostly man made?

Don’t you think it odd that successive governments in different countries who could have been brought down using your version of the truth were not? Why have they all kept up the Charade? What is the self interest in this case? Please don’t say taxes – the day any government needs an excuse for more taxes they could do it much simply and cheaper than funding flawed research.

You never gave an answer to why a cross party investigation would collude in a white wash just before an election?

11) You must never wonder why is it in every national academies interest to prop up flawed science and government policy? I’m interested to know if you reserve your theories for climatology and any other branches you don’t agree with. Logically you must assume that most medical advances, drugs and techniques are useless, that the exo-planets cosmologists say exist are fantasy, that computer processors aren’t really getting smaller and faster.

So what other branches of science, that have almost 100% of their researchers agreeing, is a phoney consensus and only that way because the research results are purely driven by self interested scientists, with no ethics or integrity who are not really interested in doing any real research, just getting paid to tell you what they think their funders want? AIDS? Cancer? Evolutionary biology? Anthropology? Quantum physics? How long is your list or is it just an irrational 1 (climate change)?

That is where your anti-science logically leads. The result of all research ultimately doesn’t depend on the results but on the results the scientists think their funders require. To you in climatology every government in the world (who do most funding in your mind apparently) supported by their national academies have decided that they must find ways to falsify data and research so it looks like the world is warming anthropocentrically.

But you see no collusion or conspiracy needed for all this to happen, just common self interest driven by greedy unethical scientists. Why I wonder didn’t they jump on the 70s media hype of global cooling when they had the chance instead of going to such lengths make sure that all the funding they gave from a certain point in time was for the research to conclude the opposite. Any ideas?

In your last post you never gave a link to the claim that a member of the panel said they deliberately didn't ask a crucial question.

Jan 4, 2011 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Lazarus,

Perhaps I haven’t been keeping up to date but I am not aware of any compelling evidence for [data and code delierately being hidden, urging that emails be deleted, that lies should be told about sequence of events, etc etc]

It's not a matter of keeping up to date. The evidence has been there all along.
--
There was a request to delete emails but you can’t just assume that this was not only done but that they contained something incriminating. Hiding code and data?

The mere request is sufficient evidence of grave dishonesty.
--
I’m only aware of them not sharing it with everyone who asked for it, which didn’t include actual climate scientists and researchers.

The roles of those who they hid it from is irrelevant. They gave it to those who shared their view, hid it from those who didn't. It's publicly funded, the public has a right to it, "actual" scientists or not.
--
No idea about what you are referring to about lies and the sequence of events. Please expand.

This relates to submission dates for articles. In the emails it is suggested that lies be told about an article in support of the Hockey Stick they were trying to get in in time.
--
“All that would be needed is for the UEA to require its staff to submit themselves to such outside scrutiny”.

Why should they when there was no requirement for them to even have the investigation they did?

For the same reason the UEA did their OWN whitewash enquiries - because of the overwhelming evidence in Climategate.
--
Calling the panel they did appoint ‘stooges’ is a value judgement showing your own bias.

No, pretending they are not stooges is evidence of bias. You seriously think an organisation trying to preserve its tax grants and reputation would open itself up? Please.
--
“My preferred option is still full judicial enquiry.”

I’m sure it is. But the contents of these emails do not warrant it in the minds of anyone other than those who have already decided, without any compelling evidence, that CRU have done something much more serious that has already been discovered.

Of course they warrant it. Their self-documented dishonesty is more than enough for most of them to be dismissed from any half-decent organisation. That's why they quickly did their own bogus inquiries.
--
“indeed you are the one claiming an (Angelic) Conspiracy “

I’m not claiming any conspiracy.

Not openly no. But your arguments depend on it, even if you don't realise it. You seem to think all the employees selected by the state for their outlook, will not put these shared interests first.
--
But for things to be as you claim, a massive international conspiracy to deceive must exist.

No conspiracy needed. All you need assume is that the funder employs those they believe will best further their interests, the funder in this case being the state. Business as normal. Scientists whose work produces reasons to expand the state will be favoured over those whose work doesn't, and many of the latter will be obliged to leave the profession to keep food on the table.

Not all scientists are as crooked as the Climategate lot, but it's the inherent bias of the system of a virtual monopoly funder of climate science that is the main issue here.
--
You must believe that governments are the main source of science funding – they aren’t. Most scientists work and research in industry and even most of the funding in universities is industry backed.

Almost 100% of climatology funding is from the state.
--
4) You must assume that whatever funding comes from the worlds governments, they choose on what projects it is spent – they usually don’t. It is the universities themselves that allocate the funds and ask for specific funding.

The universities are themselves funded by the state.
--
It isn't every government in the world spending money trying to fool their population that something is a problem that isn’t.

Some are worse than others, yes.
--
5) You must have somehow convinced yourself that this faked research has existed for decades at very level, and even covered up by scientists that need funding for non climate related research. How would that be in their self interest?

You have somehow convinced your strawmen that I refer to
- non-climate science
- fakery

(it's mostly bias rather than fakery)
--
...students...tutors

In normal science, you need to feed the paradigm to progress.
--
journals

The people who run journals are also on state money.
And they have, eg, declined to ask CAGWers to stick to disclosure agreements regarding data and code.
And run CAGW editorials.
--
10) You must believe that Opposition parties in any country in the world would not have funded, published and used science that conflicts with the current government of the time?

Opposition parties are obviously not in control.
--
politicians of various persuasions

All have a vested interest in boosting politics. But are not equally totalitarian in their outlook, obviously.
--
governtments' motivation

Well of course it's more taxes and more power.
--
You never gave an answer to why a cross party investigation would collude in a white wash just
before an election?

They're also politicians, and have the same vested interest. And remember there has now been ~20
years of ceaseless CAGW propaganda, the average MP isn't a climate specialist.
--
11) You must never wonder why is it in every national academies interest to prop up flawed science
and government policy?

Depends if the flaw has some advantage the state can use to boost itself. The square on the hypotenuse, for example, does not lend itself....
--
That is where your anti-science logically leads.

I am indeed anti-corrupt science. You seem happy to look the other way and trust your faith.
--
In your last post you never gave a link to the claim that a member of the panel said they deliberately didn't ask a crucial question.

It was widely reported in the blogoshere, and not challenged. Sadly I didn't bookmark it. Probably Climate Audit.

Jan 5, 2011 at 5:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

..... lies and the sequence of events...
This relates to submission dates for articles. In the emails it is suggested that lies be told about an article in support of the Hockey Stick they were trying to get in in time.

Here is a link that aludes to that.

"Jones’ delete-all-emails request was directed particularly at the Wahl-Briffa exchange about IPCC in summer 2006. (In a related emails, Jones said that Briffa should deny the existence of such correspondence to the UEA administration – something that was never investigated as misconduct.) "

Jan 5, 2011 at 7:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Punksta,

“It's not a matter of keeping up to date. The evidence has been there all along.”

It isn’t there at all. Monford didn’t find any more evidence of anything more nefarious than the inquiries did. Unsubstantiated insinuation is not evidence.
--
“The mere request is sufficient evidence of grave dishonesty.”

But absolutely no evidence of any scientific malpractice.
--
“It's publicly funded, the public has a right to it, "actual" scientists or not.”

And that was probably the most serious thing any inquiry found, but again it is not evidence of dodgy or flawed science. The data in question is now available and no scientists, or amateur has found anything credibly wrong or dishonest with their published science based on it – it has been over a year.
--
“This relates to submission dates for articles. In the emails it is suggested that lies be told about an article in support of the Hockey Stick they were trying to get in in time.”

No reference?
--
“For the same reason the UEA did their OWN whitewash enquiries - because of the overwhelming evidence in Climategate.”

I, as do most rational people see ‘noverwhelming’ evidence.
--
“No, pretending they are not stooges is evidence of bias. You seriously think an organisation trying to preserve its tax grants and reputation would open itself up? Please.”

Again that is just your biased judgement of the situation. The evidence didn’t warrant anything more than, and almost certainly less than, what occurred. There was no smoking gun in the emails and none has been found in all the data released since.
--
“Of course they warrant it.”

I know that is your unsubstantiated belief but it is not supported by credible evidence.
--

“Not openly no. But your arguments depend on it, even if you don't realise it.”

My arguments don’t depend on it. I accept the peer reviewed science. I can’t take you seriously if you think people need to believe your crackpot angelic conspiracy theory to do that.

“You seem to think all the employees selected by the state for their outlook, will not put these shared interests first.”

You seem to think that the State (all States) select people to do science based on their political ideologies not their qualifications.
--
“No conspiracy needed. All you need assume is that the funder employs those they believe will best further their interests, the funder in this case being the state.”

Are you sure you don’t want to read that last sentence again and consider if you should have said, “No conspiracy needed” directly before it?

For starters you believe that the Government Select Committee, a cross party group, ‘white washed’ the investigation and evidence. But somehow think there was no collusion or conspiracy to ‘white wash’. It all… - just happened!

You believe that the worlds states, regardless of their political ideologies and the fact that many have changed to a diametrically opposite political leadership over the years, all only employ and fund scientists that will further the states interests. They all choose the exact same issue to agree on – AGW, and all broadly agree that the results of such research is going to be the same as all other political parities and countries.

Countries that refuse to even have diplomatic relations all agree. Parties that would bring about militarily coops and depose the ruling party if the could, all agree.
That would be the biggest news story of all time.

Besides it hardly sounds as if they are trying to ‘further their interests’ if they already agree with each other, does it? But most ridiculous of all is that you believe that this sort of thing just happens to come about naturally. No collusion, no conspiracy. Just a coincidence they all picked global warming and it was by shear chance that none decided to choose global cooling, AIDS, inferior genetics of their enemies etc.

If you really believe that is the way the world works, if you are convinced that such an international agreement on a (you believe scientifically unsound) science subject can occur without a nod and a wink between scientists and their nations, then I can see no way any rational or reasoned debate is going to change any of your unsound thinking.

I see little point in replying further when such a failure in your critical thinking is so apparent, but believe me, the rest of your reply is equally and demonstrably flawed. I just don’t have the time to waste pointing out every illogical statement and error.

Jan 6, 2011 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Lazarus, The emails are obviously replete with evidence of a comprehensive campaign to sabotage the process of science. But like the stooges paid to cover this up, you choose to ignore it.
And having failed to come up with anything resembling a credible argument now you bow out ....

Jan 6, 2011 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

The evidence isn't there.
Of course the evidence is there. They discussed how they hid data, plans to stop alternative views on climate getting published, how to sidestep IPCC procedures, people were encouraged to delete emails, lie about submission dates.....

--

But absolutely no evidence of any scientific malpractice.
Other than all those things I just mentioned. Or is systemic dishonesty now part and parcel of the post-normal science process, where political correctness justifies the means? No doubt you think Jones's "Why should I show you my data when I know you'll try and find something wrong with it" is
good science too? And it's just old-fashioned fuddy-duddies that still think science should be an honest attempt to seek the truth, whatever it is.

--

[Data hiding] was probably the most serious thing any inquiry found, but again it is not evidence of dodgy or flawed science.
No, it's the issue the whitewashes pretended was the most serious, in order to cover up the hopeless
underlying corruption.
And it is evidence - of a dodgy, flawed science process - one that only selects questions and answers that fit some preconceived conclusion.

--

You say there is no reason the Climategate crooks should be dismissed.
Other than undisputed and widespread corruption revealed in Climategate of course.

--

You say you accept the (state funded) peer-reviewing, but like to pretend you don't maintain an implicit ludicrously naive angelic conspiracy theory about the state - ie that it does NOT pursue its own interests, including when deciding which climate science and scientists to fund.
So you have it back-to-front. You don't need a conspiracy to get the state to act in it's own interest (which in this case is getting people to believe CAGW), you'd need one to explain why it did NOT pursue its own interests.

Jan 7, 2011 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Sorry Punksta. I was enjoying our discussion while I though I was conversing with someone with critical reasoning but I now know that is not the case.

To believe that all the States/ Governments and changing their political parities only fund research to further their their own agendas. To believe they have all settled on the same subject to achieve that, but to continually deny that this requires no collusion between all the many people and groups involved is plain blinkered silliness.

You can't even state what agendas they all are trying to further that couldn't be achieved without such an elaborate system of paying experts to commit malpractice to fool the populace.

Jan 8, 2011 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Sorry Punksta. I was enjoying our discussion while I though I was conversing with someone with critical reasoning but I now know that is not the case.

[snip]

1. CAGW dogma is in the state's interest, since it justifies more taxes and government
2. CAGW dogma is funded by the state

See the problem?

Especially when you add

3. Leading state scientists have been found sabotaging the science process so as to push CAGW.

Jan 8, 2011 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

[snip]

If you think governments (including communist and dictatorships) need to invent such a house of cards with a plan that took decades to reach fruition to justify more taxes, you are well beyond reason.

Jan 8, 2011 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

[snip]

Your dogged avoidance of points 1-3 above noted. You simply have no answer, but won't admit it.

Jan 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

[snip]


1. Untrue. States do not need fabricated reasons to put up taxes. Claims to need to raise standards of education, care, roads, services etc (or no reason at all with some totalitarian states) is all that is needed.

2. Untrue. You have no credible evidence showing the published science is dogma. The data suggests it is far from such.

3. Untrue. In the case we have been discussing, all scientists have been exonerated from doing precisely this.

I know your beliefs reject all of the above but no credible evidence supports either your beliefs or theories of State manipulation of science on an international scale.

Jan 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

I was enjoying our discussion while I though I was conversing with someone with critical reasoning but I now know that is not the case.

[snip]

Your reply to (1) is non-responsive.
Yet again you simply duck the blindingly obvious point that state benefits from CAGW beliefs.

Your reply to (2) is non-responsive.
Yet again you simply duck the blindingly obvious point that it's the state funding CAGW beliefs.

Your reply to (3) is an obvious lie.
Data was hidden, efforts were made to keep non-CAGW opinion from journals, people told to delete emails etc. All of which sabotages the science process.

Jan 8, 2011 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Punksta, you beat him 10-nil.

But like the Black Knight even with no arms or legs Lazurus will not admitt defeat, thats his problem not yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python)

Jan 8, 2011 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of fresh air

Punksta found this posted just yesterday;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/reflections-on-funding-panels/

Which includes "No-one gets funded to demonstrate a specific result. People get funded to investigate questions."

I know this goes against your beliefs and conspiracy theories (that you claims isn't a conspiracy but would be the biggest news story of all time if there was any real evidence of it) but this is how funding happens in the West.

Breath of fresh air,

Do you believe that "the funder employs those they believe will best further their interests, the funder in this case being the state"? When this is happening internationally would you also deny this isn't a conspiracy?

Jan 8, 2011 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

Realclimate: No-one gets funded to demonstrate a specific result. People get funded to investigate questions.

The Angelic Conspiracy. Yes, Mann's website too peddles it.
I know this goes against your beliefs and conspiracy theories (that you claims isn't a conspiracy but would be the biggest news story of all time if there was any real evidence of it) but this is how funding happens in the West.

You're right, I don't buy RealClimate's angelic conspiracy any more than I buy yours. It would indeed be a big news story if true.
Breath of fresh air, Do you believe that "the funder employs those they believe will best further their interests, the funder in this case being the state"? When this is happening internationally would you also deny this isn't a conspiracy?

Everyone drinks water because they think it furthers their interests.
Is that an international conspiracy too now?

Jan 8, 2011 at 5:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

Lazarus, Punksta

Please raise the tone of your postings.

Jan 8, 2011 at 7:11 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Punksta.
I must bow out of this debate citing my previous comments about your critical reasoning.

If you can give credible reasons why the governments of the developed world without conspiring with each other, have spent decades and billions in funding research, satellites and scientists just so they can raise future taxes, I and I'm sure all the worlds media would be interested.

Jan 10, 2011 at 9:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazarus

[Snip - I've asked you to raise the tone]

Jan 10, 2011 at 10:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>