I just heard BP just did an investigation on itself and found itself not to be responsible for any wrong doing in the spill it was just a freak accident.
If you believe that then you would believe it is ok for anyone to do an investigation on itself. OR like they did in climategate.
Indepentent means INDEPENTENT, that means people that have NOTHING to gain from ether way they judge. That was clearly not done in the investiagtion to clear Mann or Jones. Really PA University investigates a man working for them and has been bringing in federal dollars. CSR investigates itself and hand picks the people that will be looking into the climategate emails all academics, Hummm I wonder what their thoughts on "man made global warming are??? Really do I have to say it.
"In his report, British civil servant Sir Muir Russell found that the climategate e-mails don't undermine the basic science behind man-made global warming. Nevertheless, the impact of the leaked e-mails has been to push scientists toward the realization that talking about punching climate skeptics and being coy about releasing data hardly build public trust in their work."
"Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged
The leaked 'climategate' e-mails showed lack of transparency, plus some politicking. But while scientists have been largely cleared of wrongdoing, the impact has shaken climate science."
"What is the future of climate science and climate policy after the final inquiry into the released e-mails from CRU?" wonders Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the UEA, in a statement. "I believe the CRU e-mails have been a game-changer for science – but has done little to alter the policy conundrums raised by climate change."
Insights into an insular world
The e-mails provided insights into what turned out to be an insular world, where one scientist threatened to beat up skeptical colleagues and others seemed to collude against skeptics in the peer review process.
The most damaging e-mail, perhaps, came from Mr. Jones, who wrote in reference to Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph showing increased global warming, " ...I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
In a report commissioned by UEA, Russell found no fault with the "rigor and honesty" of scientists. But he faulted CRU scientists for not using proper labels on the 1999 graph referenced by Jones. The report concluded the result was misleading, but found it was not deliberate since the research caveats were included in the text next to the graph.
Failure to release requested data was ultimately not an issue, Russell found, because qualified researchers could easily find global warming data in other places. And while several e-mails revealed at least an intent to subvert the peer review process in order to exclude skeptical research, the report found that CRU scientists did not ultimately undermine the IPCC's peer review process."
OK so lets get this straight according to Russell, they are honorable and did nothing wrong but then he says they withheld data requested. He says the reason for this is because the data could have been gotten from other places. Then why did the people requesting the data even go through the long and costly process of even filing a freedom of information act to get it. And while we are on the subject, why do the people under investigation tell each other to hide the data to stop the skeptics from getting it in a FIA. Does that sound honorable? The fact is, they were not looking for a actual CRIME If that were the case then it would have been brought by the court system. What they were looking for was to see if those people were honorable so they could be trusted. I will let what Russell says himself about them to stand alone on that.
The reason for the investigation was to see if they were honorable men so that they coulkd be trusted. That reason is clear because in science if you cant be trusted then you are not worth a shit and will be ousted from the science. There are some very plain facts here and they are anyone that has read the Emails can see just what is being said and done, all of which are not things men of honor do. Therefore they cannot be trusted and should have lost their jobs. I have to ask in what other science would we accept hiding of data???? the answer is, none.
SIRIUS XM SATELLITE RADIO FORUM
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by doclogic
