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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
berniel says at 6:53 pm [ … ]
That was a good eulogy.
George Tetley says:
July 19, 2010 at 2:18 pm
As a Managing Director of a Public Company in Canada, I am about to recommend that anything we purchase from Britain must be canceled, if this is any indication of their intelligence then the quality must be retrospective .
George Tetley
____________________________________________________________—
George, I sure as heck hope your company does incoming inspection. As a QC engineer/lab manager who has been asked to falsify Certs of Analysis at all but one of the companies I worked for, I STRONGLY suggest at least random audits. ISO is worthless in my opinion and in the candid opinions of many other QC types if you catch them alone.
How can they stop lying? Their profession is based on spreading disinformation.
Dave L says:
July 19, 2010 at 6:24 pm
“James Sexton,
You must read the following treatise:
http://fravia.com/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm”
Thank you very much! It is heartening, to read people of similar thought! Many of the assertions stated in the treatise parallel many of my personal assertions, though articulated in different manners. For instance, the second law which states The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person. One can’t un-nurture intelligence. So, the converse is true, too. Regardless of circumstance, even during upbringing, a stupid person will be stupid in perpetuity, or until the timely demise of the stupid person.
What we are observing here, are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th basic laws of human stupidity.
3rd, A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. This should be self evident and require no further discussion other than an affirmation the inquiry, to quote a certain head of state, “acted stupidly”.
4th, Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake. The reason the alarmist crowd got so far is because non-stupid people refused to take them seriously until laws started to get passed in an attempt to sate the stupid peoples fantasies and it has been costly. Case in point, if there were an intelligent person on the Oxburgh inquiry, they are paying what I have commonly known as the stupid tax. Similar to the first law, the cost of associating with stupid people is always underestimated, even when it is understood the association will tax the person willing to associate.
5th A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person. The danger and harm already done to society in general is the reason many of us are engaged in the AGW debate. In adherence to laws 1 and 4 we belatedly and reluctantly(probably because most are familiar with the tenants of the 4th law) engaged in the AGW discussion.
Again, thanks!
John Cooper says:
“It’s a perfect example of why the U.S. founding fathers prohibited a state-sanctioned religion here in America. They knew full well the tyranny that always follows a symbiotic relationship between religious leaders and government leaders.
“The religion provides the moral sanction to the government, and the government provides the force of arms and the tax money to the religion – the religion of environmentalism in this modern example.”
Actually, the Founders did not prohibit a state-sanctioned religion. Many of the original colonies had official religions that were deemed perfectly legal by the signers of the Constitution. When the colonies became states upon ratifying the Constitution, many kept their official religions or denominations. Much of this changed over a long period of time as each state came up with its own constitution.
The U.S. Constitution only prohibits CONGRESS from enacting laws concerning the establishment of religion; it does not prevent states, counties, cities, or towns from doing so.
dp says: He’s put his legacy in stone: “Here rests Phil Jones’ integrity”. No matter – it was apparantly little used.
Oh what the heck! I’m feeling a bit morbid tonight so here ya go!
http://tiggerstestblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-it-wasnt-so-maddening-id-laugh.html
All these comments are missing the point – it was a fraudulent thing to do, but IT WORKED! The enquiry came back with the verdict, and that’s what the mass media reported. That’s what the vast majority of tax payers heard. Anyone informed enough to find out how the verdict was compiled is informed enough to know how corrupt the system is, but the average person handing over the tax dollars to these people now believes all is well
So… which CRU papers were left out that should have been reviewed?
Astounding! It beggars belief – almost.
There is however a sort of precedent in England for undue influence by those already in position of academic influence.
When the Royal Society instituted an inquiry (a long time ago) into the question as to whether the calculus of Newton or Leibnitz was the first and best the finding was lo-and-behold ‘Newton’. The report was in Newton’s handwriting!
Theo Goodwin says:
July 19, 2010 at 7:11 pm
James Sexton,
“I will set aside the humor and be clear….. ”
While it is true, that I attempted to interject some poor humor, I, too, was being clear. When you stated, “…At that task, they are very good and show great intelligence.”, I’ve no doubt that once was true. I’ve known some truly brilliant men and women who carried the moniker Dr. that couldn’t do even the most mundane tasks with any aptness, but were brilliant nonetheless. Sadly, I haven’t ran into any as such in the last 20 years or so. I’m not saying they don’t exist, I’m stating they are no long indicative of the people carrying the moniker of Dr. As you point out when you stated “this kind of behavior is endemic in academia”, we know it isn’t confined to the climate sciences, though we see examples of their sophistry on an almost daily basis. When you stated, “they most likely were just doing their professorial best. Nothing better could be expected of them.”, then you’ll agree with me when I say they lacked the ability to see past their fallacy and understand the chosen course of action was not the best course of action, for themselves, for the science, or for the citizens of the world. When they failed, and they did, they didn’t fail only themselves, they fail the rest of us, too. This doesn’t show intelligence, it shows cowardice of the worst kind. It is easy to shirk from an malevolent advisory who is too strong to defeat. But they shirked from their own malevolent deeds. Once you know you are wrong, would not the intelligent path be to correct the wrong before too much is made of you being wrong? I don’t accept they are intelligent in their own areas of passion. Were that true, we wouldn’t see this debacle unfold as we are seeing today.
Theo, I’m truly sorry. The high-minded academic world you alluded to, exists only in the past. I’ve seen no evidence to state otherwise.
I know when it happened. What only seems like yesterday, this nation, and most of the other industrialized nations decided all children should receive a college education, regardless of their intelligence or aptitude. We’ve seen through the years a multitude of examples of deferential treatment to people regardless of intelligence or aptitude. We’ve even seen some colleges accept students based on their sexual preference to like gender alone as the sole qualification. While I don’t begrudge anyone their preferences, ones preferences should not be the sole qualification of acceptance to an institution of higher learning. As you stated, “there are no standards”. Believe it or not, the American Disabilities Act, covers people of less mental status and public colleges are required to adhere to the ADA.
The fact of the matter is, all that is required to attend a college or university in the U.S. today is a PELL grant application so they can get a degree on our dime. One doesn’t even have to read or write, if you can’t a person will be provided for you to do said tasks. (I can only assume similar instances are happening abroad.) As a result, universities and colleges, for the last 30 years or so have become inundated with mediocre students, with the push for everyone to have a degree, they graduated the mediocre students. Some stayed because they lacked the ability to survive in the outside world where they’d be required to do something. Thus, sadly, that populace became reflective of the sciences and academia, or they took a job in the service of the government. Sometimes, all three at once. Theo, I’ve seen you posts here, I think you’re a throw-back to a time when higher learning meant exactly that.
The peasants are revolting. Have another biscuit, Bernard?
As if further proof was required – yet more glaring evidence of the ruinous incestuous relationship between elements of UK ‘establishment’ and the ‘science’ of AGW.
I’m little surprised. This is symptomatic of a persistent malaise, wherein any seemingly impartial and objective investigation is clearly unable and unwilling to operate with due integrity, transparency or accountability.
Irrespective of whatever stance or opinion any individual might have on matters AGW, such blatant malpractice must be condemned. Farcical.
It is heartening to see the collaspe continue, by Christmas I expect it to be full force.The heart of liberal insight is this, “You people are too stupid to live your lives without my help” otherwise stated as “We are here to help you, we are from the government”. It is the group think of our university grads that they are so much smarter than the ordinary folk, thats why BA stands for so little now.This self delusion is why the inquiries have been so badly done,not even a pretence of investigation in all 3. Why bother when everyone else is too stupid to observe the fakery.Sadly this also describes the govt employee now.And the final fool , the politician, no one in their right mind would seek the job, so naturally the crazy lazy and stupid are front and centre.Thanks for the 5 laws of human stupidity, stupidly I had forgotten them.Sarcasm aside these botched enquiries have done more to keep the scandal in the public eye than one honest investigation, revealing it all as fakery would have.If the science and behaviour of the CRU staff is/was actually far worse than the emails suggest it still would have mostly blown over by now. JRR
I’ve read nothing of this in the main stream media, and expect not to.
No-one I know in real life has any knowledge of these shinanigans, or really can speak intelligently about global warming at all.
We need a door to door campaign, or at least a brochure or mailing.
elbapo says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm
“Before this episode, in various argumentations I had refrained from levelling charges of ‘comspiracy’ etc not just for fear of looking maniacal (…)”
Yes I have always had the same qualms, however —
Whichever way you look at it, there’s plain evidence here of collusion between members of what effectively has become a pressure group. Now’s not the moment to turn the heat off them.
There’s enough whitewash in this business to repaint ever Stevenson Screen ever built.
evanmjones says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:51 pm
“Whitewashgate?”
Sorry Evan. But I scooped everyone here at WUWT with that appellation. Now where’s my Pullitzer? 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/uh-oh-really-inconvenient-press/
Scroll to the bottom.
evanmjones says:
July 19, 2010 at 3:56 pm
If a screen writer pitched the story of the long and painful collapse of AGW and the destruction of the reputations of a dozen once respected Universities and institutions like NASA
I like to think of it as “Positive Feedback”.
You need to add: “with climate sensitivity.” That way you get the female draw … 🙂
In these closed chamber reviews, I suppose they could say they have been ‘honest’ in their rigor. They have not thrown out any token sacrificial lambs to appease the AGW resistance movement. They appear to have just cleared the lot — tabula rasa.
At this time, I do not see any real obstacle in their way except uncooperative weather. Perhaps at some future date we will be able to mark the Climategate revelations and the deep solar minimum of 2009 as the point at which AGW alarmism ‘Jumped the Shark.’
Is it just me, or are these “scientists” on a train to destroy science?
How many others are involved?
Is science a political satire?
I think Phil Jones should go to a nursing home and report the temp every day from his room
And these names, Rees and Jones, were put forward by The Royal Society – this reflects very badly on them.
Phil Clarke had a fair point, not that that skillfully disguised revelation excused the behaviour. You have to admire Oxburgh’s sheer gall and wriggliness.
And I know it’s your blog, Anthony, there’s probably much exasperating history and you can do as you choose but in my opinion your replies to Phil don’t meet the usual standard of discourse here.
Incidentally, this seems another classic UK Establishment “inquiry”:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/call-for-judge-investigating-torture-claims-to-resign-2030337.html
This has made my day. While facing tough competition from the past in the sphere of satire and pure comedy, this post had me in stitches with tears in my eyes. Unbelievable. But will it get its due attention in the media? I am not holding my breath!
We find ourselves forced to ask the question: “Why are the Establishment so keen to ensure that the people don’t discover that AGW is a fraud?”.
It seems that the Establishment had no faith in Dr Jones being able to defend himself robustly – which suggests the Establishment knows that AGW is a fraud. Despite this, they find it expedient to continue to give it robust support to ensure we don’t discover that it is a fraud. Why? What are they trying to hide?
I am coming to the conclusion that we are focussing too much on the monkey and not the organ grinder. Who is paying for this AGW research? Why is it entrusted to third-rate universities in the UK that carry out a minimum of real observations for the most important issue since the invention of the atom bomb? Why are so many governments world-wide banging the same drum?
It just doesn’t add up.