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.
‘Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?’
A bottle of whisky plus a loaded revolver.
So, the white paint didn’t stick? They need another coat of whitewash, but it won’t stick either. Then another and another……. The more coats they apply the heavier it will get and the greater will be their fall. Or is this new revelation the great and final fall?
AGW is the love child of the New World Order and the globalist agenda of total domination of humanity, that is why they’re going to so much lengths to defend it.
—-
Fair is fair! Did you know?…..
I would just love to see a juicy, out in the open, legal class action suit. Give lawyers a whiff of large compensations and let them loose.
As Shakespeare once wrote:
“Cry havoc! and let loose the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial.”
I get the impression that the Climategate whitewashes were just ‘acting for the cameras’ for the MSM, who, in cahoots with the scammers then just reported the outcome as a sort of victory for the warmists, which isn’t. More to come, but the final fall is evident. I believe that there will be an instant when the MSM, seeing the fall coming, will lower the warmist flag, raise the skeptic one with many journalists trying to reach the finishing line in the race to dicovered the ‘truth’. This winning journalist will be awarded the Pultizer prize or something. But the real heroes are those scientists/bloggers who have been saying it like it really is for years, going against the grain of political and financial opportunism, suffered humiliation and financial losses and much more.
Manfred says:
July 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?”
“Under the Forfeiture Act 1870 those convicted of treason are
disqualified from sitting or voting as a member of the House of Lords.
There is no statutory disqualification in relation to any other criminal
offence.”
Have a look here Manfred!
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/convicted_criminals_in_the_house
Imagine!The House of Lords does not even keep a record of those who actually got caught and received a criminal conviction!
As for removing one….I concur with Ian E!
I would not mind a little bet that some numpty has Jones lined up for an MBE at least!
The only thing that astonishes me about this post is how many are astonished about Jones;s involvement in the white wash!
Even though the news that Phil Jones picked the papers that the Oxburgh enquiry examined is morally disgusting, I cannot express much surprise at the relevations that all three enquiries were dishonest in their processes, their investigations and their findings. Vice Chancellor Acton started the ball rolling by misleading the parliament. Oxburgh, who is contaminated by his investments in and involvement with the wind-generated electricity generator industry continued the trend and exhibited supreme arrogance in presenting their incredibly contentless ‘findings’. The Muir Russell ‘enquiry’ used immacculate form with no content, designed to be seen to be going through the motions required of it but no more than that.
I stated, before the first enquiry began, that the ‘Establishment’ would close ranks and ensure the continuation of business as usual for those who are following the AGW party line as it seemed obvious at the time that whoever was in government would keep the ‘Green’ taxes flowing to help pay back the enormous and horrifying fiscal deficit, aided by the Royal Society, itself a sick joke that has always been nothing more than a rather splendid Establishment Old Boy’s Club , always absolutely committed to keeping the peasantry in its place.
And now the MSM is running whacko stories about ocean acidification and other nonsenses to please those in power instead of doing some proper investigative journalism into these so-called enquiries.
Somebody wrote above:
“Also, in my humble opinion, this kind of behavior is endemic in academia and everyone should admit it. Once admitted, academics should acknowledge that the work that they do cannot be used by governments to make decisions involving billions of taxpayer dollars.”
My viewpoint is quite similar. I have worked for an university a long time. Most of the people there have no permanent job. To manage their job to continue at least for some time they need to have the opinion as their boss.
In this case ‘the boss’ was the big money coming for the research of the AGW hypothesis. To ascertain that the funding would continue people wanted to support the hypothesis with all kinds of means. To get big media coverage, to get people scared. They even forged their data, it seems to be the case.
But in reality many decisions simply need to be based on the science… How can we be sure… Maybe this kind of behavior is too common among scientists.
…”CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit as the report stated…”
Deal Phil
The selected papers are *not* representative of the CRU’s work. In the end, it appears that UEA fed a list to the Royal Society, which was vetted by Jones (!).
Even without all this, how can you assume that we all *know* that the CRU would be obviously involved in an investigation directed at itself? Jones’ rubber-stamping of the list, if we are to believe Oxburgh, is a direct involvement that violates the spirit of the inquiry. Jones could have said: ” I have no opinion on the matter”; instead it now appears he agreed with the RS that the list was representative.
Even if we did know that, isnt it a ‘bad practice’, wrong-headed and just plain wrong, on the part of the Oxburgh inquiry, to ‘ask’ the Jones such questions?
If I were a UK Machiavellian politician (“but I repeat myself”) who was having second thoughts about CAGW and wished to discredit it in a hands-off way, I’d have appointed whitewash committees and let the hapless warmers dig themselves a deeper hole.
Can we get this gubermental practice placed into the courts? I just got a speeding ticket (not really, just an example) and would love to be able to decide what evidence is used in my court case.
Has anyone seen the papers he put forward? are they even papers that should of been put forward?
The big question here is what is happening with the MSM. This has got this far because they aren’t prepared to question anything on this. Why? They presumably believe they can get away with it because they do not think the MSM will run with it – as they haven’t. This is pretty serious from a democracy perspective, and I really hope that eventually somebody gets to the bottom of this. There was talk of govenment beaurocrats restricting web access to sensitive sites on the back of terrorism legisltation, and if the free press is not free it will be a truly sad day for democracy. In some ways I hope they carry on like this to make more people uneasy about what is happening.
Chris V says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm
So… which CRU papers were left out that should have been reviewed?
Just go to ClimateAudit and look at the past posts on the relevant papers, they were all left out.
and for those of you criticising the british for this, I would like to point out it is the british legal process which has allowed bishop hill to get this information. That part of british democracy appears to be working fine, it is the media that is not publicising it. There is nothing to stop the foreign press picking up the story – which they don’t appear to be doing, so this appears to be a worldwide problem. Any criticism of this is very restrained and almost appears to run on rails. Were they persuaded criticism was a danger to mankind and now not wanting to accept they were hood-winked? Was it the replacement of newspaper advertising with web advertising, and publicly funded global warming bodies filling the breach? If this blog is as popular as claimed from time to time (Sorry Anthony – you have to be sceptical of everything on this 😉 ) they are aware of the criticisms and surely have the resources to respond.
On a separate note, why is there no possibility to approve or disapprove of comments on whatsupwiththat – especially with the new post of the week? Filtering by most recommended and least recommended is a good way to show the weight of feeling and filter the most interesting comments.
Chris V says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm
So… which CRU papers were left out that should have been reviewed?
————Reply:
Start with Harry_Read_Me. That alone would have sunk the entire Climate Research Unit and Phil Jones better than a 100-meter rise in sea level. (Surely you wouldn’t limit the selection to just Pee-Reviewed publications, would you?)
“According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion.”
$130 billion being sucked out consumers pocket going where? To do what? Who’s pockets are being lined?
The motive behind those perpetrating the CRU scandal becomes ever more apparent as the ‘establishment’ and politicos strive to apply the whitewash.
This is good news for all of us who support the null hypothesis of climate change, as these sorts of revelation will finally bury the rotting copse of climate cargo science.
No wonder Phil Jones was on the verge of suicide – pacing up and down the hallway, a dead man walking, wringing his hands and muttering “the games up, the games up.” Then along comes Oxburgh, winks at Jones, smiles knowingly, and says “why don’t you just suggest a couple of papers that can stand up to scrutiny, old chap. No questions will be asked and I’ll redact your name.”
Dear Virginian Colonials, :-))
Err, how are you getting along without us? Everything tickety-boo? Spendid! Now, err………this is all rather embarrassing to have to ask this, but err, well, we’ve been doing an awful lot redecorating in the last few months & seem to have compeltely run out of whitewash. Back here in blighty we usually have loads of the stuff stored right next to the bovine faecal storage unit, often needed to sweeten government announcements! We honestly thought we had loads left but one or two nameless nerds have over done it with the brush, got whitewash everywhere, up to & including the faecal storage unit! Please help. AtB
More seriously chaps, NEVER have a public inquiry unless you know the outcome beforehand! Saves a lot of red faces all round!
James Sexton says: July 19, 2010 at 8:06 pm Thanks for your comments on stupidity. I am stuck on the Forrest Gump line: “Stupid is as stupid does”
On the positive side, we are seeing through the veil now regarding the CRU/UEA science. The reason we can is solely, I think, because of the blogosphere’s venue with its openness. With the knowledge of the CRU/UEA scientific processes that once were behind the veil comes the ability to apply critical analysis.
Secrecy was their only real weapon against independent thinkers.
Stay positive.
John
When our leaders and representatives are “Stupid”, “Out of Touch”, “Thumbing their nose at us”, “Making lewd remarks and gestures to us”, “Changing the rules to help their friends”, “Playing patty fingers with thieves”, “Undermining our checks and balances -both legal and monetary”, “Dying of old age in office”, “Committing us to a dangerous course”, etc., who’s fault is it? Really?
The mess (or not) is all of our own making. Be we British, American, Canadian, Australian, Japanese, Indian, Chinese, or whatnot, We are all guilty when we elect or allow fools, and liars, and thieves to govern. It is our own fault. There isn’t an innocent in the world over the voting age. And that’s a proven, 6 million year old, scientific fact!
Pascvaks says:
July 20, 2010 at 7:19 am
…… “The mess (or not) is all of our own making……”
True, people deserve the government they live under. Government receives no power, unless given freely from the people.
Pascvaks says:
July 20, 2010 at 7:19 am
(…)
We are all guilty when we elect or allow fools, and liars, and thieves to govern. It is our own fault. There isn’t an innocent in the world over the voting age. And that’s a proven, 6 million year old, scientific fact!
————-Reply:
Remember, no candidate gets 100% of the vote. The fact that the idiots that elect such scumbags outnumber those of us who vote against them shouldn’t group us into the same indefensible camp.