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.
Ryan says:
July 20, 2010 at 1:54 am
“It just doesn’t add up.”
Beg to differ old chap. Please stop messing with my futures.
The entire edifice is constructed, perpetuated and vigorously defended under the presumption that ALL the previous frauds can be bought off/paid for with the revenues from this grand lie.
The pension black holes.
The trade deficits.
The economic bailouts.
etc.
It is no wonder to me that the MSM, all the previously esteemed institutions and the vast majority of those people who could make a difference have persuaded themselves that the weak hypothesis must be upheld. Their current livelihoods and their fat pensions depend upon it. They see this and know it to be true. They are very afraid of/angry at us lot because of our dogged attempts to pop the only bubble on their limited, unimaginative horizon.
Someone challenged a warmer to justify this. We have a taker!
Phil Clarke says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Hmmm … so the newsworthy revelation is that CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit as the report stated, is substantively different from CRU’s Director agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit? Is that the point here? What am I missing? Jones was in charge at the time most the papers were written so did anyone seriously think he wasn’t involved?
The relevance of him temporarily standing aside pending his exoneration escapes me.
OK. When Congress investigates BP on their safety record, then it would be perfectly fine in your view to not only chose a small list of drilling sites where BP has not had any problems, but PB should be able to approve of the sites to be investigate. I’m sure that would sit well with you.
There’s a ClimateGate pending in the release of Journolist emails. Just as the CRU emails enabled regular scientists to understand how they’d been fooled, so might these emails explain to the American people how they were fooled. Google ‘Daily Caller’.
===================
RockyRoad says:
July 20, 2010 at 8:11 am
Hmmm. Now, if only we could choose who the nation was permitted to vote for, rather than choosing between a few “candidates” that were selected for us to vote for.
Rupert Murdoch chooses our government, here in the UK, from amongst the “candidates” put forward by “The powers that be”. The sheeple “decide” based upon his newspapers coverage.
Nice work if you can get it.
….but PB should be able to approve of the sites to be investigate. I’m sure that would sit well with you.
There is not a shred of evidence that anything analagous to this happened in the Oxburgh enquiry. Jones stood aside while the investigation proceeded, but he was of course co-operating fully with the enquiry.
According to the mail, after the selection of papers had been done Jones was asked a question:
“Jones , when I asked him, agreed that the original sample was fair.”
Which the um, devious Oxburgh, in er, a sinister attempt at a whitewash reported as:
“CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit”
Did anyone really believe that this meant the Director of the Unit when most of the papers were worked on was not consulted????
The name for such blatant self-serving internal reviews is Investi-GATE, which by the way will apply if and when actions are brought against fraudulent carbon trading schemes.
Science died years ago;when the scientific societies started alienating people with brains and an ethics. Money is the motivator , not search for truth,mediocracy is the ideal now ;that does not interfere with leader-ship or ask questions. The brains you need now you have pushed and bullied away, so now you fix your mess yourself.The alienated have ,during all your nonsense, worked on an other kind of technology- and world-view that offers MUCH better solutions and possibilities than the same old,same old they keep coming up with, more of the same is STUPIDITY: The “flying car” is invented,non-polluting energy is invented,blossoming deserts-system is invented, Magnetic rail sattelite and moon/space-vehicle-system is invented,no-tree-news is invented. But you can NOT have it, because the so-called scientists (who have just recently discovered that electric and magnetic forces exist in the Universe – but not yet the chem-trails-after 10 years) still are trying to keep the truth under wraps, thereby causing the destruction of the civilisations, heavily armed with the Rotschild-military-complex- monies- and those of those who still believe it is possible to stop time and have an eternal status quo where they forever will have tons of money, every day- and can feel superior to all the poor idiots who give it to them.You COULD have had it all – now it is not so sure you will have anything – including your life (poisons in food, water, air, medicine,toys, clothes – and chem-trails – and COREXIT (what comes from blending Corexit/Oil with the chem-trail that has saturated the sky over USA? Can- or dare- science solve that problem?????
Can I just remind readers in North America that in UK we have had a change of government within the last two months. Prior to May this year, we had been governed by the Labour party, (Tony Blair, Gordon Brown) for thirteen years. The new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has vowed to clean up the mess left by its predecessors and (to this observer at least) is making a fair fist of getting down to business.
But thirteen years of sleazy practice and even sleazier appointments are not cleared away in six weeks (at least not under our system). So in political terms, all the mess re inquiries that you see is a hangover from the previous regime’s practices. Climategate occurred on their watch, and all the inquiries were set up under their governance.
Like many of you, I hope that we will soon be returned to a state where the UK’s processes of government are returned to some semblance of rigour and intellectual honesty. But Rome was not built in a day….it will take a while for us to get there.
I would also note that, despite the many failings in our way of arranging matters, it was the leading pro-AGW newspaper in UK that saw fit to arrange a public meeting to discuss Climategate. And to allow a platform to Steve McIntyre and Doug Keenan (both Canadians) as well as more Establishment figures. So maybe we do things just a wee bit differently from other systems, but occasionally these ways have some merit too.
RockyRoad says:
July 20, 2010 at 5:09 am
(Surely you wouldn’t limit the selection to just Pee-Reviewed publications, would you?)
In the circumstances, that seems a strangely apt typo…
Thanks Anthony. I join with others in wishing Dr Schneider’s family comfort in their time of profound grief.
You are indeed a class act Mr Watts. How you manage to be so diplomatic escapes me at times, but then again, I have always been one to call it like it is and end up hurting feelings. That is why we are all so very fortunate to have a fella like you taking the time to give all of us a voice out there.
Cheers, and thanks again old bean.
DaveS says:
July 20, 2010 at 9:45 am
RockyRoad says:
July 20, 2010 at 5:09 am
(Surely you wouldn’t limit the selection to just Pee-Reviewed publications, would you?)
In the circumstances, that seems a strangely apt typo…
—————Reply:
Typo? What typo?
What’s all the fuss about?
You start with a ‘preferred outcome’ and fit all the pieces in after that, Phil is there to make sure the jigsaw is ‘fitted up’ nicely it’s all based on a ‘model’ called AGW and how to “Tuck up mankind with an uproarious and fantastical piece of ‘way out there’ writing!”
…………………….. – “nothing to see here ladies and gentlemen! NOW do please move along!”
Fantasy isn’t dead in the Disney of East Anglia.
I have nothing against wind turbines and other new energy devices and new transport systems, just the opposite.
I think that the global warming hypothesis was from the beginning supported by nuclear energy companies, not only by some ‘greens’. In America they had some 30 years ago the ideology there are only two ways to get much more energy. The other was nuclear energy, the other was coal. If coal had the problem of warming the earth then there was only nuclear energy choice left.
I think that there is much more probability that the climate will from now on become cooler than warmer than in the recent past. That is because of the sun emitting less and less energy. From the past we know that it meant a cooler climate. I see no reason the amount of co2 would effect climate much.
Most scientists are just like other people. Many of them are just fond of money and power. And those were available if you supported AGW hypotheses. Of course there were others who had different motives, such as ‘saving the planet’ and so on. About Phil Jones’ motives I don’t know. But it is quite clear that they are trying to whitewash his doings now.
So, should this be called Climategate’s Investigationsgate?
There’s nothing new here. British governments and institutions have always set up completely corrupt and ineffectual enquiries, whether it be on Climategate, the Iraq war, Dr. Kelly’s suspicious death, etc etc practically going back to the Ark. The *whole point* of them is to exonerate anyone who might actually be culpable and cover up the real facts. After all, we also have a long tradition of locking up the wrong people for serious crimes. Watch a few episodes of Yes, Minister and you’ll get the hang of the principle.
In the good old days, two wrongs did not make a right. In the world of post-normal science (and particularly any “investigation” of the “integrity” of its practitioners), it would appear that one can only conclude: if you ask the wrong questions of the wrong people, you are well on the path to finding the right answers.
Phil Clarke:
Please keep making your posts.
The subject of this thread is about a clear example of corruption in an investigation, and such a subject has little humour. Hence, your posts provide comic relief that is greatly appreciated by those of us who enjoy such satire.
Richard
Larry writes:
“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.”
My feelings would be hurt if I received a low rating.
James Sexton writes:
“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.”
(Point 1) You left out the part when I said that Phil Jones and others lied in presenting the hockey stick as the product of the best in science, statistics, and scientific method. Their common fault is their hubris. They should have honestly said that first rate science is beyond what went into the hockey stick and beyond what they can achieve given their present resources and organization. (Point 2) That kind of work should be given to research institutions in the private sector, not to universities. The old model of the university cannot support science that feeds directly into multibillion dollar policy decisions. All such scientific projects should be run on the model of the Manhattan Project and should exist in private enterprise fully outside of the government.
Kay says:
July 19, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. It seems that there’s no justice in the world….
__________________________________________________
Welcome to reality where the dishonest win big and those with integrity are considered sheep for the shearing.
Dave L says:
July 19, 2010 at 6:24 pm
James Sexton,
You must read the following treatise:
http://fravia.com/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm
_________________________________________________________
AHhh yes, the biggest drawback to civilization. In the wild the usual penalty for stupidity is death and the genes are normally not passed on.
Deborah says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:32 pm
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
__________________________________________________
Super, but you need to add a few touches of snow
Theo Goodwin says:
“(Point 1) You left out the part when I said that Phil Jones and others lied in presenting the hockey stick as the product of the best in science, statistics, and scientific method. Their common fault is their hubris. They should have honestly said that first rate science is beyond what went into the hockey stick and beyond what they can achieve given their present resources and organization. ”
I agree quite much with that.
Phil Jones probably knew that the Hockey Stick was a construction not really based on the data, but it was the twisted arrangement of the data trying to show something they wanted to show. They intentionally constructed such a curve to get much publicity and to get people scared. Phil Jones probably knew quite well that the Hockey Stick was not based on the science, but ‘on the politics’.
Theo Goodwin says:
“(Point 2) That kind of work should be given to research institutions in the private sector, not to universities. The old model of the university cannot support science that feeds directly into multibillion dollar policy decisions. All such scientific projects should be run on the model of the Manhattan Project and should exist in private enterprise fully outside of the government.”
I disagree with that. I think that research institutions in the private sector are more vulnerable to create biased research results than government institutions. In the private sector they are completely dependent on the private funding; if there is not the desired result the funding stops. In this climategate case researchers were as well dependent on such funding, which would cease, if the results weren’t as desired. If in government institutions people would have the permanent funding regardless of their results, if they are as expected and as desired or not, they are more bound to tell the truth about their results?
—
The other factor behind the climategate was of course that many people doing the research were seriously thinking that something really bad would happen (if something is not done for co2), that they wanted to tell even lies concerning their data. To tell lies to get people scared and to get politicians to do something.
About Phil Jones’ motives I don’t know well. And I don’t really know what would be the best way to get justice to him. In my opinion he is just a victim of this case. He wanted to do the best for the society and for himself. The real problem is somewhere in the whole structure of IPCC. Most scientists are as human as any other people. There was too much pressure on them.
But what is the lesson?
Maybe one day we will learn how the climate works. IPCC was not very successful with that, they were too one-sided. But something new has been learned about the climate anyway. At least we know that the global temperature is dependent on many factors, which were left out by IPCC.
Something has been learned about the research institutions, too?
Any ideas what action can we take to expose this fraud? Well I should rephrase that to ‘deal’ with this fraud? We can expose it all day long over the web but it doesn’t stop them.
I am late to the party here, just reading all the piling on. I certainly felt like doing that myself. However in reading the comments here I couldn’t help but be amazed that some people actually attempted to imply that this is no big deal. I come from a background that includes a childhood in a cult and a subsequent rejection of all things faith into two science degrees. I have agreat sympathy for those who have chosen to believe that their cause is so just that no negatives can be considered, they are terribly misguided. They mean well but they have no comprehension of how they have rejected the most fundamental building block of science….questioning.