Bishop Hill GWPF report press
Sep 14, 2010 Climate: Briffa Climate: CRU Climate: Jones Climate: Parliament I'll post up links to any news coverage of the GWPF report here.
Climategate whitewashers squirm like maggots on Bishop Hill's pin
Here's Fred Pearce in the Guardian:
Andrew Montford's report for Lord Lawson's sceptic thinktank raises some valid criticisms but will most likely be ignored for its brazen hypocrisy
[Montford's] report complains that the enquiries commissioned by UEA did not offer sceptics the chance to give oral evidence. He points to many instances where he says the enquiries failed properly to investigate serious allegations against academics at UEA.
Louise Gray in the Telegraph
[A] report for GWPF by Andrew Montford, a well known blogger, said the inquiries failed to ask the opinions of sceptics. He also said they were rushed and failed to ask a series of questions about why requests for information were refused or probe allegations of fraud in scientific papers.
Fiona Harvey in the FT
[I]n the latest salvo, the Global Warming Policy Foundation – a think-tank started by the UK’s former finance minister Lord Lawson – published its critical assessment of four of these inquiries on Tuesday.
“None of the panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive,” the GWPF concluded. None “managed to be objective” or “performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work” of the UEA scientists who wrote the e-mails.
Reader Comments (115)
Zedbed
I think Dropstone is a bit unfair although I cant blaim him after some of the things you were saying.
However now you seem to be engaging with people which is brilliant.
Dont forget to read the review by the Bish (54 pages!).
Then you can try pulling it apart :)
HaroldW
Dung! what is 7*6?
49 miss
Dung you are an idiot!
Miss, Johny got the same answer as me????
How anyone can be impressed by:
“CRU’s research points to conclusions on global warming which are replicated by separate data sets being analysed by independent researchers in other parts of the world."
defeats me.
Just to reassure you I AM aware that 7*6 is 54 ^.^
Dung -
I didn't want to wade into the "separate data sets" and "independent replication" issues...just pointing out that the UEA statement to the Express, which in the context of the article appears to be a response to the report, in fact is not so. I suspect that's due to the timing -- UEA have not yet read the report and formulated an institutional response.
Dung
The answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything is of course and always has been somewhere between 49 and 54.
Do not collect your carbon credits on passing GO or was it CO CO? No he was a clown, wasn't he?
Have fun
ZBD says
"Incidentally, your point on looking up papers. I was trying to have a decent debate with some guy called Peter Wilson who insisted I look up a 30-odd page paper by Pielke. I duly did so, and had to reread the bugger 3 times because I was so sure I'd missed something. In the end, I had to conclude that Peter himself hadn't actually read it, as it completely undermined him. Pointed this out and he's vanished and not replied"
Yes, you did miss something, and I have read it, no point in going into it here, but the Pielke Snr article in question utterly demolished your claim that the GISS and HADCRU datasets are independent. Go and have a fourth look if you missed that bit. This is well known to most regulars on this site in any case.
I disappeared because wiser heads counselled me not to feed the trolls. They were right. Sorry Don
Sep 16, 2010 at 10:43 AM | Peter Wilson
Andrew Montford has asked to keep this thread on topic. Go to my last entry on the Jones in El Pais thread to see how you are wrong there.
HaroldW
I was trying to agree with you ^.^
and be humorous.
I will just write it off as a bad day.
Bad Dung indeed
Good Dung --
I understood you were agreeing with me, I was just trying to stay on topic for the thread (responses to the report), rather than parsing UEA's press statement.
And, like Green Sand, I interpreted your "7*6" as a reference to Mr. Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide. So -- assuming that's what you intended! -- your humor was not lost. Most any reference to Hitchhiker gives me a smile.
HaroldW
Nope I was trying to ridicule UEA who tried to justify their results by saying that other people got the same results (so consensus).
To humorously ridicule it I got a simple arithmatic question wrong and then reacted the way that they have reacted...but Miss, Johny got the same answer.
My next post getting the sum wrong yet again was more humour but it didnt work do pls forgive me ^.^
Bish this is all on topic -.-
Bishop, you need to update your report, Steve has had an illuminating reply from Lisa ref how the 11 papers were selected.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/09/16/who-chose-the-eleven-an-answer/#more-12044
JohnH
Brilliant!
No wriggle room there ^.^
Sorry a test
Sorry a test
test
bah
Sorry a test
bah