If you were planning to do a spot of DIY over the weekend you may encounter a problem – an acute shortage of whitewash in your local store, as it may have been appropriated for more urgent purposes. The estimable Bishop Hill is reporting he has heard on the grapevine that the publication of the review into the Climategate emails conducted by Sir Muir Russell is “imminent”. The prospect seems to have provoked an acute absence of hysterical excitement.
This is the third investigation into Climategate and the universal expectation is that it will be as much a snow job as the previous two, though those precedents will be hard to beat: not since Tom Sawyer manipulated his friends into whitewashing his aunt’s fence has a team worked harder than the successive establishment figures who have exonerated the Decline Hiders from any culpability.
The Russell review got off to a bad start. Within hours of its launch last February, Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature (the magazine referred to in “Mike’s Nature trick” which also published the Hockey Stick graph), had to resign from the inquiry because of remarks he had made in an interview on Chinese State Radio, in which he said: “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”
Some people took the narrow-minded view that this suggested Campbell had prejudged the issue, so he had to go. Why did Sir Muir Russell think that Campbell was a suitable person to have on the inquiry panel in the first place? A press release claimed of the panel members: “They were selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues of the review.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gneiss says:
June 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Then it appears that three inquiries in a row found no evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps they are right, and there was none.
=====
Kind of like saying “we lost three games in a row because the referees” cheated.
Is there anyone who isn’t in on this global warming scam?
“The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”
These people are sickening.
When you start with a blatant untruth – see below – the final conclusion can only be the same, a fudge, or a whitewash.
The good people at Real Climate are certain to like the outcome, but most will ignore or reject it. In any event, the conclusions will once again bring the scientific world into disrepute.
“A press release claimed of the panel members: “They were selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues of the review.”
What is coming out is how prejudiced the magazine editors are towards science and shows who the peers are in the “Peer Review” process.
So if you bull crap and lie, you’ll get published. This is REALLY showing how corrupted science has moved along to be taken has factual science.
What is the status of Phil Jones these days?
Did he quitely return to his position at the CRU after the initial whitewashing, or is he still “on the sideline” ?
What are the odds that the third inquiry will discredit the first two inquiries?
Wren says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Kind of like saying “we lost three games in a row because the referees” cheated.
No, it’s more like the
whitewashersreferees all being appointed by the same Team.“…no prejudicial interest in climate change”. That’s a laugh. Just who do they think they’re fooling?
@ur momisugly jorgekafkazar, June 11, 2010 at 4:40 pm
thanks friend for the great link (http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/ ) to a detailed layout of the shenanigans of the climategate criminals!
WOW!
An investigation at this point should have nothing to do with whether or not an investigator is right, used best statistical methods, or even followed standard inquiry methods. A research scientist has the right to be dumb ass wrong, use sloppy procedures, and do his or best to convince others that his work is good, based on the data he/she has collected, and the methods used to analyze that data and present it.
An investigative panel should discover whether or not FOI requests were denied, or data was simply made up. It should also discover whether or not any one person engaged in blackballing others from getting their research published. That last one should be difficult to prove because the peer review process has probably got a little blackballing in it as an intrinsic part of the process.
For me, I am quite comfortable having the articles in print, in major journals, and etched in time, with all the bells and whistles as well as wrinkles and weaknesses, all firmly attributed to the authors as their best effort to understand the causes of weather pattern variability (aka climate change). Something about opening your mouth and proving something.
oops, …his or HER best…
Bruce Cobb says:
June 12, 2010 at 6:22 am
Wren says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Kind of like saying “we lost three games in a row because the referees” cheated.
No, it’s more like the whitewashers referees all being appointed by the same Team.
“…no prejudicial interest in climate change”. That’s a laugh. Just who do they think they’re fooling?
——-
Conspiracy theories are entertaining.
I guess they’ll keep on having inquiries until every potentially interested party is bored stiff and says: Yeah, whatever…..
The corruption of ‘climate science’ has spread far and wide. Those with money to make (Al Gore?) are enthusiastic supporters. Eventually Joe public will realise that we have been conned. But what will this do to the rest of science? At some point people will ask not if the conclusion is true but who stands to make money from it and judge it accordingly. The profession of science is being damaged and this is not acceptable. If people no longer believe in science, then they will believe in anything. We cannot afford this in the 21st century. We face massive challenges from climate change, water supply, food supply, energy supply and disease. Science had better get it right or we’re in trouble. We currently have an energy minister in the UK who thinks building windmills will save us from energy shortfall (and nuclear energy is ‘outdated’). Is there not some govt. scientist who can explain the practicalities to him? I despair.
Gneiss says:
June 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Then it appears that three inquiries in a row found no evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps they are right, and there was none.
There’s a fourth due. The inquiry by the UK Information Commisioner’s Office on recommending improvements to the way the University of East Anglia handles FOI requests. Although prosecutions are out of time, these recomendations are a procedural thing, and take as long as they take.
The ICO has already stated there is prima facia evidence of criminality, so their report on improving that might prove interesting.
Wren says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:40 am
Conspiracy theories are entertaining.
As are straw man arguments.
I suspect that political and self-interest considerations may prohibit the finding of any real fault with those scientists still perceived by many as heroes dedicated to fighting the noble battle to save the beauty of the earth and the wonders of nature from despoliation by ‘big money’ and ‘big oil’ interests. It may be a while before the damage to science caused by quixotic self-styled heroes becomes clear to all.
Yes indeed –all critics
and opponents of
behemoth corporate cupidity
must be absolutely marginalized
and belittled–
http://www.meetup.com/socalmartiallawalerts/messages/boards/thread/9262641
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/227072
http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/226659
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/06/07/senator-nelson-says-bp-well-integrity-may-be-blown/
http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/senator-confirms-reports-that-wellbore-is-pierced-oil-seeping-from-seabed-in-multiple-places
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/deepwater_horizon_oil_well_was.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/07/gulf.oil.plume/index.html?npt=NP1
All the whitewash and corex
has been expended on BP.
Gneiss says:
June 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Then it appears that three inquiries in a row found no evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps they are right, and there was none.
______________________________________________________________________
I strongly suggest you read Assassination of Science Climategate: http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
No matter what side you are on Climate Scientists acted unethically. and that is putting it mildly.
The continued white washing of scandals such as climate gate and repeated food poisonings makes it very clear the politicians could careless what their electorate thinks.
RE: Mike Odin: (June 13, 2010 at 5:25 am ) “Yes indeed –all critics and opponents of behemoth corporate cupidity must be absolutely marginalized and belittled–”
Criticism is one thing, and the advertent or inadvertent group-think manufacture of false science to further that end is something else…
We may criticize BP and the Obama Administration for not having the foresight to have a process in place for quickly suppressing a deep-ocean well-casing failure, but we may not go and plant *false* evidence to prove that they knew all along that this was likely to happen.
Penn State University’s investigation into Climate Gate and Dr. Michael Mann’s involvement exhonerated Dr. Mann recently and found no wrongdoing. Most of the people with an opinion here never read the out-of-context, patchy emails when they first surfaced. I read a lot of them. They were so fragmented, there was much ado about nothing.
Because [snip] skeptics jump on the whitewash wagon, insisting on listening to their fave politicians over science/scientists or heaven forbid–government reports, they’re simply being snowed by industry, the same industry that seeks to pollute us to death for profit while stuffing the pockets of said politicians.
In order to quell the whitewash mantra from [snip] skeptics, Penn State stated: “In order to thoroughly extinguish any lingering doubts about the panel’s findings, school administrators decided to convene a separate Investigatory Committee of Dr. Mann’s faculty peers and distinguished scientists to continue to investigate the allegation that Dr. Mann “engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.”
After this investigation Dr. Mann was once again exhonerated from any wrongdoing. The panel even went on to say: All of [Dr. Mann’s] awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.”
What’s curious to me is that the hackers got away with breaking the law and no one seems to care who they were, their motivation, if they were hired, how they did it, and where they are now. Rights were violated, but it’s OK? The illegal hackers have yet to be caught, something else that is curious. One would think besides jumping on the scientists for so-called manipulation of data, there would also be equal interest in catching the hackers and uncovering their motivation. Were they paid, how much and by whom for example? But that just hasn’t materialized, hmmmm?
[snip] skeptics don’t find this strange? Sketchy emails were turned into climate gate. Why would deniers/skeptics even jump on these emails when [snip] skeptics claim climate science is inexact, data is erroneously gathered or misinterpreted, and climate history only goes back so far. Between all of these excuses one would think there was little need for “climategate” to validate deniers/skeptics claims.
It seems what we really have here are a lot of ostriches , burying their heads in the sand, content that their fave politicians say it’s just a whitewash, no need to worry because man can’t possibly affect the environment, when right in front of us unfolds the greatest obstacle to that thinking, the gulf oil spill. Man most certainly affected a huge portion of the environment and for years to come in one fell swoop of negligence.
REPLY: Read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709 and tell me if you still support 100% what you just wrote. Don’t skim it, as you accuse us of doing, and lose the D word in future comments – Anthony