It turns out Phil Jones and cohorts did nothing wrong. Who knew?
Climategate accusations shrivel under the glare of multiple investigations
They claim hide the decline was a simple removal of erroneous data.
It turns out Phil Jones and cohorts did nothing wrong. Who knew?
They claim hide the decline was a simple removal of erroneous data.
the Air Vent 
Of course there is a chance that nothing was done wrong.
But for many of us, it sure doesn’t even look like a fair evaluation was done at all.
Removal of erroneous data? No, removal of the data that does not fit with the AGW theory.
How do they know that it is the only odd part and that there isn’t a lot of data like that all over the millennium estimated? there are no measurements to compare…
And why do MSM center on this “hide the decline” issue if it was a well known problem before the climategate?
What about
– Gatekeeping
– Deleted data
– Poor climate data keeping
– Avoiding FOI requests
– Bunker mentality and voodoo science
– etc…
Anyone linking to desmogblog is simply a closet totalitarist who cannot wait for eco-gulags to be built and people sent there upon the denounciation of their neighbors. The tone of this racist and delationist Hoggan creation is simply advocating for civil war.
They’re all dreaming. They’re fantasy world is depopulating already.
The only conclusion I draw from these investigations is that they still somehow feel it’s necessary to paper over the mistakes, incompetence, bad behavior, anti-scientific methods, etc. It’s one micron better than totally ignoring the avalanche of complaints, but it’s a start.
Of course they’ll circle the wagons. But the damage has been done. People are starting to find out how much of a lie the global warming movement was.
I can understand these “investigations” finding no wrong-doing, after all, Mann, Jones, et al, bring good money into their respective institutions and who would want to kill the geese laying the golden eggs? What I find amazing though is the wholesale re-writing of well-documented historic events (revisionist history); and it’s happening right before our eyes. Wow. So this is what totalitarianism looks like.
Interesting that the discussion turned to statistics and GF/Tamino turns up to mount a personal attack on Jeff… ad-hominems and abuse…. and writes nothing about the math.
To my eyes, these commentators at ‘Scholars&Rogues’ share a common problem – abeit a very human one – they would rather go down in flames than admit that their viewpoint is wrong. Any married man should know at least one example of that. Those that logged on to AGW when it was being trumpeted as the one true faith are reluctant to examine anything that might change their mind.
I have an admiration for Oliver Cromwell who did ask”… consider it possible that you may be wrong”.
OT:
Ayatollah Kazem Sedighitold was reported by an Iranian newspaper saying recently that these women are to blame for the country’s calamities, the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph reports:
“Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes … We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers.”
Same with Global Warming… 😉
I note that it’s no longer “Global Warming” or even “Climate Change”, but “Climate Disruption”!! Is this a sneaky way of admitting “its not as bad as we thought”?
Robert E Phelan
You have completely misrepresented what went on on the blog.
Jeff ID wandered in and started telling everyone it was Propaganda. Tamnio just said Jeff was wrong – there was no Ad hom.
“4.Jeff Id, April 19, 2010 at 9:06 am :
You have painted a nice propaganda story which neatly misses all of the real issues in the climategate emails. I hope your other readers are more impressed than this one.”
“13.Jeff Id, April 19, 2010 at 12:14 pm :
Brian Angliss, April 19, 2010 at 11:40 am :
You have written even more propaganda, it seems like a hobby but maybe you don’t understand.”
“19.tamino, April 19, 2010 at 3:16 pm :
The post is quite clear, correct, and on point. The accusations against Jones and the CRU crew were blatantly false. The accusers owe them a vast number of apologies. My prediction: they lack the courage and the integrity to do so.
For example: Jeff Id, who resorts to the usual refuge of scoundrels: change the subject.”
no ad hom, and it was Jeff ID who was being rude.
Why must you lie Robert?
Nathan – read the emails.
#12, In my view the post was propaganda. It’s not gentle enough to tell the truth then they shouldn’t blog. The proprietor didn’t mind much and stood his ground. Tammie and I have a history, he is an extremist and I’m not. He came after me because of that more than anything else.
Jeff ID
that’s fine, I am not criticising your use of the word ‘propaganda’. I was critical of Robert E Phelan’s characterization of what was said on that blog.
I should say, good on you for your posts on the physics of the greenhouse effect. It’s good to know that there is some basic assumptions that we can all agree on.
Nathan:
you just crossed a line. Don’t do it again.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
The most damning e-mail of them all.
Imagine if I worked for a CPA firm and the SEC found an e-mail like that from me regarding a client. I’d be Obama’s poster child for financial reform.
And yet these guys get a free pass. If this isn’t scientific misconduct, tell me what is. The guy is admitting he’s an advocate of a predetermined conclusion. Why else would it be a travesty?
You always talk about advocacy here, and this is the best illustration of it that I’ve ever seen. Advocacy has no more place in science than it does with independent auditors. The numbers are what they are.
Robert E Phelan
“you just crossed a line. Don’t do it again.”
HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Why, what will you do?
Come on Robert, lighten up. You made up some rubbish about Tamino using ad homs against Jeff ID and you got found out.
It appears to be the standard for Extreme Leftists to resort to the BIG LIE to keep the sheeple in line. Why is anyone surprised that all these Bureaucracies would totally blow off any accusations against them and their cohorts??
Nathan:
You really need to learn English. Tamino can defend himself. You called me a liar. You can apologize or meet me in today’s equivalent of Weehauken Heights. Laugh if you like, but Jeff will not ignore a subpoena. You can meet me for a beer or meet in court. You have 24 hours to respond.
Robert
“For example: Jeff Id, who resorts to the usual refuge of scoundrels: change the subject.””
Can you explain to me how this is an ad hom?
BTW what is Weehauken heights?
Robert,
here’s what ad hom means, to help you work it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
You really need to learn English. Tamino can defend himself. You called me a liar. You can apologize or meet me in today’s equivalent of Weehauken Heights. Laugh if you like, but Jeff will not ignore a subpoena. You can meet me for a beer or meet in court. You have 24 hours to respond.
Robert, your ad-hom claim was obviously false. so do you admit that you didn t understand what ad-hom is, when you wrote your reply above?
and that this is the reason, why you din t intentionally make a false claim?
Sod and Nathan
You two are an incredible piece of work. Tamino’s comment may not have been as economically formulated as the classical example, but an argument that essentially runs “X is a scoundrel so we can ignore what he has to say” very definitely is an ad-hominem argument, as is this one: Sod and Nathan are a pair of anonymous ankle-biters. We can safely ignore all their contributions.
Robert,
You are right! and again we see there angered attacks again and again.
but an argument that essentially runs “X is a scoundrel so we can ignore what he has to say” very definitely is an ad-hominem argument
the argument isn t anything like that. Robert, you simply don t understand it.
the argument “Robert uses terms that he doesn t understand. that for he is a fraud” is NOT ad hom. it also is not a logical fallacy.
it is a good logical conclusion.
the argument that tamino used, has the same logical structure:
Jeff Id, who resorts to the usual refuge of scoundrels: change the subject.”
it says: Jeff Id changed the subject. that is, what scoundrels do.
there is no ad hom there, at all.
ps: Luke, you also wanted to make in known, that you don t understand what ad hom is?
Sod: It must be hard being you. You can’t read, you can’t reason…. it’s almost as if your parents worked at producing the most cognitively dysfunctiomal child they could.
Don’t worry…. you had a prophet who would clear your path:
For is and is not, though with rule and line,
and up and down, by logic I define…
spoken by a twelfth century mathematician who would have spit on St Grant.
If you can’t recognize an ad-hominem argumentm no matter how poorly constructed… that’s your disability. Don’t revel in it.