Climategate Lies - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-01-2010, 08:20 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:09 PM
Climategate Lies

The inquiry by Pennsylvania State University has finished looking into allegations against Michael Mann and shockingly enough found that it was a beat up
Quote:
Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry

WASHINGTON — An academic board of inquiry has largely cleared a noted Pennsylvania State University climatologist of scientific misconduct, but a second panel will convene to determine whether his behavior undermined public faith in the science of climate change, the university said Wednesday.
The scientist, Dr. Michael E. Mann, has been at the center of a dispute arising from the unauthorized release of more than 1,000 e-mail messages from the servers of the University of East Anglia in England, home to one of the world’s premier climate research units.

While the Pennsylvania State inquiry, conducted by three senior faculty members and administrators, absolved Dr. Mann of the most serious charges against him, it is not likely to silence the controversy over climate science. New questions about the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to which Dr. Mann was a significant contributor, have arisen since the hacked e-mail messages surfaced last November.

That faculty board did not look into the science of climate change itself, the university said in announcing its results. That, it said, is “a matter more appropriately left to the profession.”

Dr. Mann was named in 377 of the e-mail messages, including several that critics took to suggest that he had manipulated or destroyed data to strengthen his case that human activity was changing the global climate.

In the best-known message, Phil Jones, a climatologist of the University of East Anglia, refers to a “trick” in a graph produced a decade ago showing 1,000 years of essentially steady global surface temperatures followed by a sharp upward spike in the 20th century, seemingly corresponding to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The so-called hockey stick graph has become an icon for environmentalists. It was prominently displayed in a 2001 United Nations report concluding that greenhouse gases from human activities had probably caused most of the warming measured since 1950.

In some of the e-mail messages, Dr. Mann refers to his assembly of data from a number of different sources, including ancient tree rings and earth core samples, as a “trick.” Critics pounced on the term and said it was evidence that Dr. Mann and other scientists had manipulated temperature data to support their conclusions. But the Pennsylvania State inquiry board said the term “trick” was used by scientists and mathematicians to refer to an insight that solves a problem. “The so-called trick was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field,” the panel said.

The e-mail messages also contained suggestions that Dr. Mann had hidden or destroyed e-mail messages and other information relating to a United Nations climate change report to prevent other scientists from reviewing them. Dr. Mann produced the material in question, and the Pennsylvania State board cleared him of the charge.

There were also questions about whether Dr. Mann misused confidential data and engaged in a conspiracy with like-minded scientists to withhold information from competing scholars. The board found nothing to support the charge.

Dr. Mann, in an e-mail response to a request for comment, said he was pleased that the panel had found “no evidence of any of the allegations against me.”

“Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely,” he wrote. “Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures. This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.”

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, a skeptic of climate change called for an independent investigation. “We need to reassure the American people that their tax dollars are supporting objective scientific research rather than political agendas,” he said.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 8, 2010
An article on Thursday about an academic inquiry that largely cleared a Pennsylvania State University climatologist, Michael E. Mann, of scientific misconduct misattributed an e-mailed comment about a “trick” used in combining temperature data. Phil Jones, a climatologist of the University of East Anglia, sent the e-mail message, not Dr. Mann. (The inquiry board found that Dr. Mann’s use of the data was legitimate and noted that “trick” is a term used by scientists to refer to an insight that solves a problem.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/sc...mate.html?_r=1

Now test how scientific the "sceptics" (to use the term loosely) are at changing their opinions in light of new evidence.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2010, 10:01 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 12:09 AM
I'm getting a 7% increase in tuition because my university spends money on bullshit like this.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2010, 04:26 AM   #3
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 11:09 PM
so...they should've not looked into this at all and allow people to continue manipulating data to convince americans that something isn't true that really is?
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2010, 05:08 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 06:09 AM

I already suspected Climategate to be little more than a fabricated controversy. On to the next one I guess...
__________________
DrTeeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2010, 07:30 AM   #5
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 11:09 PM
So what are Oscar and Glenn Beck going to do?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2010, 05:15 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
so...they should've not looked into this at all and allow people to continue manipulating data to convince americans that something isn't true that really is?
It's some controversy people just made up, by all indications.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 10:43 AM   #7
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 11:09 PM
oh i agree, but sadly some people will believe what one person says with no proof backing them up instead of dozens...oh who are we kidding? the people who thought climate change is a load of bull will still think so now that this has come out.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 12:27 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:09 PM
Quote:
The inquiry by Pennsylvania State University
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
So what are Oscar and Glenn Beck going to do?
This



at

Socialist / "Scientist" dweebs

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...innocent-mann/

Quote:
The committee did not speak with Steven McIntyre, the most outspoken critic of Mann's work, even though Mann was asked to responded to several of his comments. Lisa Powers, director of information for Penn State, told FoxNews.com that McIntyre's comments were already "well known and publicly available."

"The committee stayed with academics at well-known institutions," Powers explained. "Please recall that the committee was not charged with investigating the science of climate change, but rather whether any research misconduct had occurred."
How would you react to BP investigating themselves?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 12:35 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:09 PM
At least there is some movement on the Royal Society:

Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming – Telegraph Blogs

Quote:
By Gerald Warner

The latest institutional retreat from uncritical support of the AGW hypothesis is one that will chill warmists to the core: the Royal Society has announced it is to review its public statements on climate change. The Society now believes that its previous communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood. It has appointed a panel to review its statements, assisted by two critical sub-groups, including a number of Fellows who have doubts about the received view on the risks of increasing CO2 levels.

In fact this review has been forced on the Society by 43 of its Fellows who demanded last January that the pamphlet Climate Change Controversies, produced in 2007 and published on its website, should be rewritten to take a less aggressive stance in support of AGW and respect climate change “agnostics”. In such partisan activities the Royal Society has form: in 2005 it published “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change”, which denounced 12 “misleading arguments” which today, post Climategate and the subsequent emboldening of sceptical scientists to speak out, look far from misleading.

This development does not, of course, mean that the Royal Society is embracing climate scepticism. On the contrary, it is very reluctantly modifying its stance to accommodate some of its Fellows who take the very scientific position that a degree of agnosticism is good practice when hypotheses remain unproven. Yet this retreat from absolutist global warming orthodoxy will deeply dismay the AGW lobby. For years, there was no fiercer proponent of the AGW theory than the Royal Society. Its previous president Lord May notoriously stated: “The debate on climate change is over.”

That was about as unscientific a statement as you could get: even the theories of iconic pioneers such as Einstein are routinely revisited by scientists. Yet Lord May intolerantly declared: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.” Most major scientific advances have been achieved by a handful of people. That kind of dogmatic assertiveness brought great joy and comfort to the Al Gore cultists; to sceptics it was a reminder that the Royal Society’s founding members dabbled in alchemy – was the Society returning to its roots? Is carbon capture the new Philosopher’s Stone?

Clearly, that kind of blind commitment to the AGW cause will no longer be endorsed by the Royal Society. It is a sign of the times. Two months ago the Science Museum in London changed the name of its Climate Change Gallery to the Climate Science Gallery, as it began to distance itself from the partisan assumptions of the climate lobby. In fact it was abashed by the derision to which its previous posture had been subjected by visitors. Its director said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”

That same realisation is dawning on more and more institutions and individuals, as the AGW scam becomes ever more discredited. Scepticism is now the prevailing public sentiment: the onus is on the alarmists to prove, rather than assert, their increasingly untenable claims. The European and global financial crisis has also concentrated minds on the insanity of squandering $45 trillion on an imaginary threat, to make carbon traders billionaires.

Slowly but surely, the sceptical camp is winning. Daily the alarmists are forced to give ground. They will contest every inch of the way; it will be trench warfare against them for years; but the tide of battle has shifted decisively and the AGW superstition will ultimately be defeated.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 12:41 PM   #10
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
How would you react to BP investigating themselves?
That comparison doesn't work, and you should know that. Academic institutions are not all of one mind and purpose. There is plenty of dissent and differing opinions.

But keep on throwing around "socialist" as if it somehow sticks or means that they're all wrapped up in a grand conspiracy.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 12:54 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
That comparison doesn't work, and you should know that. Academic institutions are not all of one mind and purpose. There is plenty of dissent and differing opinions.

But keep on throwing around "socialist" as if it somehow sticks or means that they're all wrapped up in a grand conspiracy.
It's already a proven socialist conspiracy and hard skeptics are being ignored by Penn State but it doesn't matter because the outcome could already be expected.

Quote:
That faculty board did not look into the science of climate change itself, the university said in announcing its results. That, it said, is “a matter more appropriately left to the profession.”


The IPCC reports are swiss cheese. I think Democrats who love this topic should convince their own party to try and pass cap and trade before they try to convince conservatives. It's a breath of fresh air to not have Orwellian news reports that try to connect every warm spell and storm to global warming on a weekly basis. It's also nice to not have friends talk seriously about the end of the world and actually get on with their lives.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 01:23 PM   #12
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 459
Local Time: 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The inquiry by Pennsylvania State University has finished looking into allegations against Michael Mann and shockingly enough found that it was a beat uphttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/sc...mate.html?_r=1

Now test how scientific the "sceptics" (to use the term loosely) are at changing their opinions in light of new evidence.

Have you ever heard of Maurice Strong and Robert Muller? UN Agenda 21?

I think if you look at the people who wrote the playbook, it might be informative.


First, it was " Global Warming." Then they had to Change the name to "Climate Crisis"

In the UK, they have pulled Uncle Al's book and film , and if they do so it, it has to include the corrections to the data and the "mis-spoken " untruths.

Yep, vindication all right

READ United Nations Agenda 21. It is on their website.
__________________
Benji2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 01:30 PM   #13
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 459
Local Time: 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
That comparison doesn't work, and you should know that. Academic institutions are not all of one mind and purpose. There is plenty of dissent and differing opinions.

But keep on throwing around "socialist" as if it somehow sticks or means that they're all wrapped up in a grand conspiracy.

It is contrived. It was written by Maurice Strong and Robert Muller.

United Nations Agenda 21 . Read it. has been around for years, and the method that used, ratified at the Rio earth Summit .

They even say " it is a created crisis " to spread money to "poor Countries through a "carbon exchange ". It is where the term " Sustainable development "comes from. They also have the earth mapped out into 8 different " districts "

the problem is, they could really care less, they do believe the Gaia Faith ( Didn"t Gore get his 3rd Chokra released? ) but it is about the money . Period.

This is what Cap and Trade is all about.

Research Shore Bank in guess where.... Chicago.

It is all a scam , but they really believe the religion part. Read some Jim wallis, and you will see.

One other thing. Look at the Ga Stones Ted Turner build in Ga. Read what they say. United Nations Agenda 21

I won't even link it. Go to the UN website and look at it. ( may have to use search box". They have been putting this in action for years.

they had to change the name from " Global Warming " when that was blown apart, to Climate Crisis.

Then look into Robert Mullers and Maurice Strong " religion. Then watch the movie Avatar . There is their dream. God of Gaia . No kidding.
__________________
Benji2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 01:32 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 12:09 AM
Quote:
In some of the e-mail messages, Dr. Mann refers to his assembly of data from a number of different sources, including ancient tree rings and earth core samples, as a “trick.” Critics pounced on the term and said it was evidence that Dr. Mann and other scientists had manipulated temperature data to support their conclusions. But the Pennsylvania State inquiry board said the term “trick” was used by scientists and mathematicians to refer to an insight that solves a problem. “The so-called trick was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field,” the panel said.
This is a total crock. The two different data sets that were merged were (1) proxy data from before the 1900s from Mann's (and others') models and (2) actual data from the 1900s and forward.

The data show that the Earth has been warming significantly since the 1980s, there is no doubt about that. The fraud is that the models, when the proxy data is plugged in, claim that there should not be such a sharp increase in global temperatures, but in publications the modeling data and actual data are surreptitiously merged as if they are in complete agreement!

If the modeling predictions are inaccurate when measured against the only real data we have (from the 1900s and forward), then this calls into question the validity of the model. The reason this is important is that contemporary models suggest that the "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" were much less pronounced than previously thought. If the contemporary models are incorrect, and previous proxy reconstructions of the severity of the LIA and MWP are more or less correct, then it is not at all clear whether the global warming of the last half-century is unusual at all, nor is the extent to which this warming was caused by man. Implementing economic policies to counter the production of greenhouse gases will come at a cost, and it is important to understand as clear an assessment of the problem as possible before such policies are implemented.

AFAICT, the review board has focused on the more sensational allegations of misconduct and delegated the task of investigating the more subtle but ultimately far more important questions of research methodology to the climate science community itself.
__________________
speedracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2010, 01:39 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:09 PM
Lawrence Solomon: Catastrophism collapses | FP Comment | Financial Post

Quote:
Lawrence Solomon July 2, 2010 – 6:43 pm

G20 leaders in Toronto tried to avoid the fate of colleagues felled by warming advocacy

Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.

One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change — and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 — which now carries more clout than the G8 — went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20’s draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to “a green economy and to sustainable global growth.”

These leaders’ collective decisions in Toronto reflect their individual experiences at home, and a desire to avoid the fate that met their true-believing colleagues, all of whom have been hurt by the economic and political consequences of their global-warming advocacy.

Kevin Rudd, Australia’s gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia’s conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt. The U.K.’s gung-ho global-warming leader during last year’s G8 and G20 meetings, Gordon Brown, likewise lost his job.

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had vowed to “save the human race” from climate change by introducing a carbon tax by the time of the G8 and G20, was a changed man by the time the meetings occurred. He cancelled his carbon tax in March, two days after a crushing defeat in regional elections that saw his Gaullist party lose just about every region of France. He got the message: Two-thirds of the French public opposed carbon taxes.

Spain? Days before the G20 meetings, Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, his popularity and that of global warming in tatters, decided to gut his country’s renewables industry by unilaterally rescinding the government guarantees enshrined in legislation, knowing the rescinding would put most of his country’s 600 photovoltaic manufacturers out of business. Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi similarly scrapped government guarantees for its solar and wind companies prior to the G8 and G20, putting them into default, too.

The U.K may be making the biggest global-warming cuts of all, with an emergency budget that came down the week of the G20 meetings. The two government departments responsible for climate-change policies — previously immune to cuts — must now contract by an extraordinary 25%. Other U.K. departments are also ditching climate-change programs — the casualties include manufacturers of electric cars, the Low Carbon Buildings Program, and, as the minister in charge put it, “every commitment made by the last government on renewables is under review.“ Some areas of the economy not only survived but expanded, though: The government announced record offshore oil development in the North Sea — the U.K. granted a record 356 exploration licences in its most recent round.

Support for global-warming programs is also in tatters in the U.S., where polls show — as in Europe — that the great majority rejects global-warming catastrophism. The public resents repeated attempts to pass cap and trade legislation over their objections, contributing to the fall in popularity of President Barack Obama and Congress. Public opinion surveys now predict that this November’s elections will see sweeping change in the United States, with legislators who have signed on to the global-warming hypothesis being replaced by those who don’t buy it.

In the lead-up to the Toronto meetings and throughout them, one country — Canada — and one leader — Prime Minister Stephen Harper — have stood out for avoiding the worst excesses associated with climate change. Dubbed the Colossal Fossil three years running by some 500 environmental groups around the world, Canada — and especially Harper — are reviled among climate-change campaigners for failing to fall into line.

Not coincidentally, Canada has also stood out for having best withstood the financial crisis that beset the world. Fittingly, Canada and its leader played host to the meetings.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com