Reply to: Climategate enquiry "unsatisfactory"

[sasguru]

Adding zilch to the debate as usual.

Haven't you got a big spreadsheet to be updating for your superiors?

Well look at it objectively:

BB
SB
DP
EO
Churchy

Ex-squaddies and/or itinerant IT jobbers. At least one a complete Walter Mitty character.

Not top-drawer or the elite by any means - and hence unlikely to have the cognitive capacity to judge complex issues like climate change.

[DimPrawn]

It is rather noticeable that our "AGW is a conspiracy theory/all scientists are in cahoots for grant money/consensus and peer review is irrelevant" believers share a common trait.
It is that they are, to a man, not as successful in the real world as their self-perceived intelligence should have led them to be, were that perception to be true.

Adding zilch to the debate as usual.

Haven't you got a big spreadsheet to be updating for your superiors?

[Spacecadet]

It has all the defects of religious belief.

Just wait until they start burning the heretics.

There was that banned advert in which the non-believers were blown up

[EternalOptimist]

Phil 'cyclops' Jones, did indeed have a shifty look about him. but I was basing my observations the comments (paraphrasing heavily here) that may the way they do things in science, buts its not the way we do things in climate science.

us, share ?? no we are climate scientists.


thats the way he came across pj

[sasguru]

It is rather noticeable that our "AGW is a conspiracy theory/all scientists are in cahoots for grant money/consensus and peer review is irrelevant" believers share a common trait.
It is that they are, to a man, not as successful in the real world as their self-perceived intelligence should have led them to be, were that perception to be true.

[Old Greg]

It has all the defects of religious belief.

Just wait until they start burning the heretics.

Would produce too much CO2.

[EternalOptimist]

Your plurals are wrong - there was one such misjudged request from one scientists for emails subject to a rather arcane controversy over IPCC rules to be deleted. There is no evidence of data or files being deleted. This is the worst example to be found in 10 years of private mails?

The problem is, it's human nature to think 'he's done it once , he's done it before and he'll do it again. My impression , watching him at the inquiry, was that he thinks he is above the rules, they just dont apply to him. The end justifies the means.

[EternalOptimist]

Why do scientists send e-mails to each other to delete files and e-mails?

Answers on a postcard.

but they didnt, it's all made up by the increasingly ludicrous <enter name here>, see link link link link link link link link link link link link
pjclarke

[BlasterBates]

Why do scientists send e-mails to each other to delete files and e-mails?

Answers on a postcard.

[TimberWolf]

2. In the course of your inquiry into the inquiries, which of the following principal people in the inquiries have you interviewed -- Lord Oxburgh, Sir Muir Russell, Geoffrey Boulton, Peter Clarke, James Norton, Phil Jones, Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, Mike Hulme, Michael Mann? If some or all of them were not interviewed, why?

Hey, someone with the same name as you.

[BlasterBates]

the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal

Both plunging at the moment, as predicted a few years back. Oh yes it might just be an aberration, but then again it might just be the beginning of a trend predicted 10 years ago. The lower solar cycle wasn't predicted by NASA even as little as a year ago, but it was predicted by the "quacks" the ones who don't have a reputation, and they also predicted the temps would plung around about 2010. Yes 2010 was almost as warm as 1998 (12 years later, even the warmest years can't break records) but the speed of the drop is quite remarkable.

Let Mother nature speak.

[Churchill]

No reply.

You're wrong, incorrect, positively erroneous and talking out of your arse.

I was going to add "delusional" but that would be getting (too) personal.

[pjclarke]

Unsatisfactory Climategate Enquiry.

Hi Mr. Andrew Montford,

I have just looked at your report on your 'Climategate' 'inquiry'-into-inquiries ( http://www.thegwpf.org/images/storie...-Inquiries.pdf ). About Lord Oxburgh's inquiry, you say,

The Scientific Assessment Panel headed by Lord Oxburgh was chosen so that only a minority of members could be expected to look at the evidence with 'questioning objectivity'. Despite their claim to the ontrary, the research papers the panel examined were not selected "on the advice of the Royal Society." [...] No records were kept of interviews and important papers have been destroyed.

And about the Muir Russell inquiry, you said,

Only CRU scientists were interviewed and no oral evidence was taken from critics.

With these in mind, I ask the following questions regarding your inquiry report:

1. How was the one-man panel (i.e. you) for the GWPF inquiry-into-inquiries selected? What measures were taken to ensure the objectivity of the panel? If no such measures were taken, why?
2. In the course of your inquiry into the inquiries, which of the following principal people in the inquiries have you interviewed -- Lord Oxburgh, Sir Muir Russell, Geoffrey Boulton, Peter Clarke, James Norton, Phil Jones, Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, Mike Hulme, Michael Mann? If some or all of them were not interviewed, why?
3. If you did interview the above-named principal people in the inquiries, where are the records of the interview proceedings? If records of some or all of the interviews have not been kept, why?

I hope that, as someone who demands the highest standards in inquiries conducted by other people, you can show yourself to adhere to the same high standards.

No reply.

[EternalOptimist]

pj, your uncritical fervour is starting to look a bit OTT. You are not related to Chauvin by any chance ?

[pjclarke]

You might want to apply a simple sanity test:- check out the credentials of the 'whitewashers' and ask the simple question of whether they would jeopardise their substantial reputations by signing off on the multiple reports that exonerated CRU when if they were wrong, it would likely be exposed sooner or later.

You will be shocked to discover that The Telegraph (employer of the incresingly absurd Delingpole), is cherry-picking a single word out of context for its headline. Here's the conclusion from the report

It is, however, important to bear in mind the considered
view of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, that
“the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty
unequivocal”. While we do have some reservations about the way in which UEA
operated, the SAP review and the ICCER set out clear and sensible
recommendations. In our view it is time to make the changes and improvements
recommended and with greater openness and transparency move on.

No doubt mountains will continue to be made out of molehills by those whose case lacks evidential underpinnings but the reality that there is not a shred of evidence for consequential scientific malpractice in the purloined mails from CRU, whose scientists and science are in any case a small proportion of those that make up the concensus.