Previously I have said this about the lack of integrity regarding the recent Climategate investigations:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
Now from Bishop Hill we learn that it appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review. So let me amend what I said above:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a “fair sample”, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
This entire mess is snowballing again with UEA, CRU, and Dr. Jones right at the center again.
Details here at Bishop Hill who writes:
Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees – we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was…Phil Jones.
Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one’s objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? “You’ve picked all my bad papers”? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative.
Gobsmacked I am, surprised I am not.
Sponsored IT training links:
If want to pass 640-816 exam for your career sake then try out the 70-647 dumps with 650-568 practice exam to pass your exam on time.
It’s was clear from watching and reading the inquiry at the time that they were playing softball with Phil Jones. Now we know he even knew what pitches were being throw and may have even called the pitches.
[snip]
Feel free to snip at will. I’m kinda grouchy after reading the above article…
Selfexoneration.
Before this episode, in various argumentations I had refrained from levelling charges of ‘comspiracy’ etc not just for fear of looking maniacal; but I genuinely beleive the AGW movement has been driven by well meaning types whose worries snowballed (or stoked, whatever hardehar) a form of mass irrationality. And very successfully, I might add.
However, what witness here is now undeniable conspiracy to pervert the course of science.
When an (albeit self declared) scientific paradigm is threatened this is common behaviour by the scientists involved (see Kuhn).
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:32 pm
“The British government is complicit in global warming ‘science’. This is more evidence that global warming is politics and not science.
The Founding Fathers of America put safeguards in place to stop things like this. That system may still have its say here. I don’t know what will come to the rescue of the Brits.”
Given the state of alarmism here in the U.S., and given we’ve had our own whitewash, I think it is a bit early to “tsk” in weary bemusement at our cousins across the pond. While I remain hopeful and optimistic we in the States can serve as a catalyst for reform in scientific, political and economic procedures, we are a long way from getting there. Hopefully, November will be a start, but the road is long and as long as the current administration is in power, regardless of the outcome of November, we won’t see any significant changes in incestuous relationships between academia, government and science. (Which is what we are witnessing in G.B. on the post.)
Just a post normal British benign inquiry. Now can the USA top that with an investigation of the historical surface temperature data/thermometer records – I can see it now, Investigated rigorously by “Real Climate” scientists , adjusted,homogenized and of course declared fit for purpose!
Josh, get out your cartoon pens ready for the galloping whitewash with Gavin and his chosen investigators!!
For the uninitiated, it’s important to know that the 11 papers were not ‘representative’. In fact, these papers uniquely avoided all of the controversial subjects. So the reason that Dr. Jones’ involvement is scandalous is because it misdirected the inquiry to papers where they would find no evidence of wrong doing.
This is like watching As the World Turns.
The twisting, turning, churning and tangled webs are woven without end.
Richard says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:32 pm
I now leave you, gentlemen of the jury, to retire, to carefully consider your verdict of “Not Guilty”
Entirely superflous information, but I think the quote comes from Peter Cook’s parody of the Jeremy Thorpe trial. Another classic British establishment cover up.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It seems that there’s no justice in the world. Everything is a big lie or a scam. There’s no such thing as truth anymore. I used to trust science above all else–but I can’t do it any more. They’re all just a bunch of liars out to make a buck on the taxpayers’ dime. They don’t care who they hurt or how many lives they destroy, as long as they get their money. They’re no better than the politicians they’ve crawled into bed with.
I’m shocked, yet not, all at the same time. We all know that climate scientists (Mann & Jones) have no problem removing data that doesn’t suit them. Why would they act any differently in an inquiry. So while I’m not surprised that Jones would do this, I am somewhat surprised that the inquiry would be this blatant about it.
Now it clearly is fraud. If the person investigated designs the investigation and the investigators sign off on that design but do not tell the public about these shenanigans and do tell the public that the investigation is genuine then that is fraud. Yes, it is also simple lying, collusion, and various other matters but it adds up to fraud. They should be prosecuted for fraud. The USA D0E should file charges immediately.
REPLY:Until we have a truly independent investigation, I don’t know that it is fraud. It does however have troubling integrity issues. The DOE is already suspending payment, though I doubt they have any jurisdiction beyond that. – Anthony
INGSOC says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:38 pm
[snip]
“Feel free to snip at will. I’m kinda grouchy after reading the above article…”
No need to feel grouchy, this story only affirms what most of us already knew. Well, we didn’t expect them to ask Dr. Jones for the evidence against him, but who could conceive of something that insipidly stupid? Maybe it is the cynic in me that made me chuckle but I find some humor in this. I can only assume all the people involved in the decisions made, in regards to this investigation, thought no one would find out. These allegedly “smart” people apparently had little understanding and little regard for sites such as Bishop Hill and WUWT or any other informative blog.
While many of that ilk like to drone on and on about the nature of climate studies on the web. Two recent articles here come to mind, one where we are nothing but right-wing militants, and another is concerned about revolutions and such because there is no dialogue between the scientific community and the blog-sphere. They apparently haven’t taken it upon themselves to educate themselves regarding this nuance. (It’s only been around for a couple of decades.) Personally, I like it this way, it makes it easier to point to their willful ignorance and make fun of the surprise they get when they get caught at lying, distorting, misleading and overall believe they can say what they will without having their assertions dissected and sent to the trash bin. That being said, I get grouchy also when I contemplate some of the misdeeds of the alarmists. I just grab a laugh when I can.
One last observation, though, for what ever reason, the decision makers of the inquiry had absolutely no fear of the main-stream-media and their investigative journalists. Strange, I wonder why?
Mod……If you think my reference to the latter post about dialogue was too much, like INGSOC, feel free to snip the second paragraph. My intention isn’t to harm, but rather up lift a fellow skeptic.
Ladies and Gents, The three “investigations” were indeed jokes, but I frankly don’t see getting lathered about verifying whether the selection of papers was reasonable. My disconnect is the following:
1. Why check at all if the scope is not to include the science?
2. Given that they did, why not also take a selection of papers and posts from Steve McIntyre and verify that THEY are also representative?
Where am I off base?
Ordinarily I try to avoid some of the “piling on” that’s been increasing due to the increasing readership. However, I saw Toy Story 3 yesterday and wrt to the continuing Stupidity of this review process, I can only say “To Infinity and Beyond.”
Next up, a whitewash of the whitewash. After all, fraud is the new “normal”.
James Sexton asks:
“The funny part about this situation is, noting the board was full of academics, isn’t this an objective reflection of intelligence (or lack thereof) in academia?”
Having lived a life there, I can assure you that this is a perfect reflection of behavior in academia. Behavior and intelligence rarely influence one another among these folk. When academia was good, academics understood that they were a collection of eccentrics. Once academia went on a war footing, so to speak, these little gatherings of academics became totally dysfunctional. There is a place for specialized research institutions comprised of mostly academics, but it is not the university.
Noblesse Oblige,
The fact that the names were redacted means they had something to hide, no?
Anthony,
Thanks for your comment on my post above. I do appreciate your great efforts in behalf of science. Anytime you want to delete a post from me, that is fine with me.
Noblesse Oblige says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm
“Ladies and Gents, The three “investigations” were indeed jokes, but I frankly don’t see getting lathered about verifying whether the selection of papers was reasonable. My disconnect is the following:
1. Why check at all if the scope is not to include the science?
2. Given that they did, why not also take a selection of papers and posts from Steve McIntyre and verify that THEY are also representative?
Where am I off base?”
You’re correct about the lathering, as I stated earlier, we knew they were whitewashes before they rendered their opinions…..but…..
1. Given the recent revealed antics of this inquiry, the one thing the inquiry knew was they couldn’t check the science because it was beyond them. Given their astounding lack of ability to reason, I doubt they could note the differences of weight between a C and an O even if you gave them an elemental chart. So, they confined themselves to the methods, or so they led some to believe.
2. Obviously, the purpose of the inquiry was to pronounce the CRU vindicated of all misdeeds. It wasn’t about the methods nor the science.
John A,
Exxon you say?
Exxon gave $100 Million dollars for environmental studies to the University Stephen Schneider works at.
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d24-Global-warmings-Stephen-Schneider-The-Light-That-Failed
I hope that parliamentary committee reconvenes.
Is it just me or is the whining getting more shrill over at RC? This comment on Muir Russel responses (number 217) from Jim (presumably Bouldin):
[Response: Keenan is a first degree idiot. He was the one who forced Queens University of Belfast to release their tree ring data earlier this year, on the grounds that it was somehow critical to global temperature reconstructions. I don’t spend a lot of time reading denialist junk, but I did read his ideas about why this was supposedly the case, and I have never read anything more ridiculous and counter to reality. He believes that even though certain Irish tree ring proxies held by QUB do not correlate at all well with local temperature records, that they are somehow useful as a global temperature proxy. Worse by a fair margin than even McIntyre’s nonsense on Yamal.–Jim]
I feel like saying “tell us how you really feel…” Is this the way “real climate scientists” conduct themselves in public now? Mind-boggling that they expect us to take their comments seriously.
Will the BBC, PBS and the lot report this?
When it is all done and dusted, the greater tragedy with this great global warming swindle and the Gruesome Greasome now covering up their fat backsides from the long gorging at taxpayers expense, will be to allow every ratbag carpetbagger and snake oil merchant peddling their quack remedies to refute any scientific objection to their wares with- ‘Well you know you can’t trust the scientists and science anyway’. Where were all our mainstream ‘without fear or favour’ journalists while this was going down we may well ask now? At the very least they need to get off their backsides now and put their shame to rights.