Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
AuthorMessage
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3238

PostSubject: Re: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row   3/2/2010, 9:34 am

The Guardian put together an in depth 12 part series on the hacked CRU emails.

Climate wars: The story of the hacked emails

Spoiler alert: There's still no conspiracy. Wink
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3238

PostSubject: Re: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row   3/31/2010, 8:40 am

Quote :
Inquiry: Climate data not manipulated
British lawmakers say science sound, but want transparency

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

. . .

The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics' research out of peer-reviewed journals.

One that attracted particular media attention was Jones' reference to a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.

"Hide the decline" was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded. Similarly, Jones intended "trick" to mean a neat way of handling evidence, rather than anything underhanded, the inquiry found.

Exactly the nonstory BWG finally agreed it was.

Steve Easterbrook explains what this fiasco really tells us - How Scientists Think and Fight:

Quote :
Once we’ve gotten past the quote-mining and distortion, the worst that can be said about the CRU emails is that the scientists sometimes come across as rude or dismissive, and say things in the emails that really aren’t very nice. However, the personal email messages between senior academics in any field are frequently not very nice. We tend to be very blunt about what appears to us as ignorance, and intolerant of anything that wastes our time, or distracts us from our work. [Gregory House syndrome? -H] And when we think (rightly or wrongly) that the peer review process has let another crap paper through, we certainly don’t hold back in expressing our opinions to one another. Which is of course completely different to how we behave when we meet one another. Most scientists distinguish clearly between the intellectual cut and thrust (in which we’re sometimes very rude about one another’s ideas) and our social interactions (in which we all get together over a beer and bitch about the downsides of academic life). Occasionally, there’s someone who is unable to separate the two, and takes the intellectual jabs personally, but such people are rare enough in most scientific fields that the rest of us know exactly who they are, and try to avoid them at conferences.

. . .

Now, in climate science, all our conventions are being broken. Private email exchanges are being made public. People who have no scientific training and/or no prior exposure to the scientific culture are attempting to engage in a discourse with scientists, and neither side understands the other. People misquoting scientists, and trying to trip them up with loaded questions. And, occasionally, resorting to death threatst. Outside of the scientific community, most people just don’t understand how science works, and so don’t know how to make sense of what’s going on.

And scientists don’t really know how to engage with these strange outsiders. Scientists normally only interact with other scientists. We live rather sheltered lives; they don’t call it the ivory tower for nothing. When scientists are attacked for political reasons, we mistake it for an intellectual discussion over brandy in the senior common room. Scientists have no training for political battles, and so our responses often look rude or dismissive to outsiders. Which in turn gets interpreted as unprofessional behaviour by those who don’t understand how scientists talk. And unlike commercial organisations and politicians, universities don’t engage professional PR firms to make us look good, and we academics would be horrified if they did: horrified at the expense, and horrified by the idea that our research might need to be communicated on anything other than its scientific merits.

. . .

The bottom line is that scientists will always tend to be rude to ignorant and lazy people, because we expect to see in one another a driving desire to master complex ideas and to work damn hard at it. Unfortunately the outside world (and many journalists) interpret that rudeness as unprofessional conduct. And because they don’t see it every day (like we do!) they’re horrified.

Some people have suggested that scientists need to wise up, and learn how to present themselves better on the public stage. Indeed, the Guardian published an editorial calling for the emergence of new leaders from the scientific community who can explain the science. This is naive and irresponsible. It completely ignores the nature of the current wave of attacks on scientists, and what motivates them. No scientist can be an effective communicator in a world where those with vested interests will do everything they can to destroy his or her reputation. The scientific community doesn’t have the resources to defend itself in this situation, and quite frankly it shouldn’t have to. What we really need is for newspaper editors, politicians, and business leaders to start acting responsibly, make the effort to understand what the science is saying, make the effort to understand what really driving these swiftboat-style attacks on scientists, and then shift the discourse from endless dissection of scientists’ emails onto useful, substantive discussions of the policy choices we’re faced with.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3238

PostSubject: Re: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row   4/1/2010, 8:45 am

The actual report is here. It's worth checking out.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3238

PostSubject: Re: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row   4/14/2010, 12:08 pm

The "Climategate" that never was...

Quote :
Response by the University of East Anglia to the Report by Lord Oxburgh’s Science Assessment Panel

UEA welcomes the Report by the Lord Oxburgh’s Independent Panel, both in respect of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being cleared of any scientific impropriety and dishonesty, and the suggestions made for improvement in some other areas.

The Oxburgh findings are the result of the latest scrutiny of CRU’s research. The first was the original peer review which led to publication in some of the world’s leading international science journals; the second was the Inquiry by the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Taken together, these must represent one of the most searching examinations of any body of scientific research. The veracity of CRU’s research remains intact after this examination.

From the actual report:

Quote :
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

There's not even any skeptics around to comment anymore, is there?
Back to top Go down
Artie60438



Posts : 9729

PostSubject: Re: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row   4/14/2010, 5:21 pm

Heretic wrote:

There's not even any skeptics around to comment anymore, is there?

Nope,they've taken their ball and gone home,whining all the way about how they were mistreated here by repeatedly being asked to back up their claims with facts.
Back to top Go down
UrRight



Posts : 3993

PostSubject: Re: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row   4/14/2010, 5:57 pm

We'll get "NUKED: before the rest of the glaciers melt.

Cracks me up how people worry about climate change rather than the soldiers fighting for oil thAT AFFECTS THE CLIMATE; THE OIL REFINERIES IN iNDIANA...DROVE PAST THEM THE OTHER WEEK...NO WONDER MY MOM AND DAD's FRIENDS got cancer early in age in those areas.

We spew out more environmental waste that can't solve anything but a pin-hole in the sky. Factor in all of China, Iran, every country...all we have to look for is whether we ger "NUKED" by Iran for all the good deeds we did for the world. All we did was enable them and make us a crippled nation.

One nation can't do it all alone; it takes the whole world. Being we are a divided nation and world, just pray you survive the nuclear weapon war. All Obama did was draw more attention to his "power" and zap us out in no time. They do not like our leader. He doesn't even allow the press in on one of the most important meetings....what's he gotta hide? The transparency lie.

We're dying under our own pollution; who ya gonna blame? Take a ride by Gary's Steel Mills and tell me if that isn't in your water or in your ground...has to be...especially the stacks that are rotted iron steel mills deteriorated to the bone.

We're a half-azzed nation not tearing that un-used crap down, and revitalizing the lakefront..but long ago I was exposed to tons of dead fish in my 20s going to the Dunes. Stunk so bad, we never went back after high school. All of us at Thornridge can remember the dead fish piled up along the beach front. That was in the early 70s. (Ask Richardr Roeper, we knew each other and grew up in Dolton, same grades, same schools....). Everyone I know that lived near the steel mills or in Hegewish, died of cancer at an early age. I was told Hegewish had the highest rate of cancer....I could smell the air at night, a beautiful night...and had to shut the windows and turn on the A/C.

Pigeons starting shitting and squalling around the bottom basement porch, perched above on the roof out of the blue after living there from 98 to 2004. Never happened until 2004. Thank God I moved out. What I'm saying is, Chicago's Hegewisch neighborhood, EC and etc., is polluted and I don't think it's any different in Hammond..when I go to Michigan or go to Manhattan, IL, I smell nothing but fresh air and actually can't count the stars in the sky at night. Thesky is swarmed with twinkled stars. Here: no stars.


Last edited by UrRight on 4/14/2010, 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : I type too fast for this flucker buffer)
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3238

PostSubject: Re: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row   4/14/2010, 10:11 pm

UrRight wrote:
Cracks me up how people worry about climate change rather than the soldiers fighting for oil thAT AFFECTS THE CLIMATE...

Rather than? No, as my history spanning three forums shows, I worry about it all. But seeing how this particular thread is about the "Climategate" nonsense...
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3238

PostSubject: Re: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row   6/24/2010, 10:19 am