Posted on 03/31/2010 11:09:11 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Irish Times reports that :Scientists at a leading British climate research centre had a culture of withholding information from global warming sceptics but did not deliberately manipulate data to support their case, politicians said today.
The report makes the amazing statement that "The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," , making the reader wonder what such a committee would consider enough to damage a Warming scientist's reputation - nothing it would seem!
In the first official report into the theft of emails from the unit last year, a British parliamentary committee said the messages did not contradict the mainstream scientific view that man-made emissions have contributed to rising temperatures.
Thousands of emails exchanged between scientists were published on the Internet days before world leaders met in Copenhagen for climate change talks last December.
The government has acknowledged that the ensuing row dented public confidence in the evidence underpinning man's role in raising global temperatures.
Campaigners who doubt the science behind man-made global warming said the messages showed researchers hid, exaggerated or fiddled the data to support the consensus view.
Parliament's Science and Technology Committee rejected that assessment of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), but sharply condemned the unit for witholding information requested by outsiders under Britain's freedom of information laws.
"The culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics, we felt was reprehensible," Committee Chairman Phil Willis told a news conference.
Professor Phil Jones, head of the unit, was cleared of dishonestly fiddling the data to strengthen his evidence.
"The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," the report said. "We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus."
The committee found nothing sinister in Jones' use of the words "hide the decline" and "trick" in two emails about temperature changes that attracted the most public attention.
"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 university has set up two separate inquiries into the email affair and British police are investigating the hacking.
One big bucket of whitewash , liberally applied!
8 comments:
Carbon is a FRAUD. Regulating it is a money-making scam by CROOKS and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Compromise is a bad word and people need to remember that. Compromise the mission = your guys lost and got killed. Compromised an ally = you left someone out to dry. Compromise on BS AGW = you sold out the American People, Freedom, and your own "Hope the Alligator eats me last" carcass.
AGW is a COMMUNIST SCAM. Everyone knows it but the Liberal Elite Mouthpieces
The problem with the "climate change lobby" is that it is UN,EU,and the policy of most governments.
Seems to me that Richard Nixon was to be pushed out of office for this type of behavior.
**************************************************
Session 2009-10
31 March 2010
CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT SAY MPs
The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:
"Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided."
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.
On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—"trick" and "hiding the decline"—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.
The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity". But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.
On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
**********************************excerpt****************************
Report published
The Committee published 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia', HC 387-I, its Eighth Report of Session 2009-10, on Wednesday 31 March 2010. Volume II, the oral and written evidence, was published the same day.
It’s the Leftist way - the label is the thing.
They declared AGW real, so the fact that they lied about the science can’t matter, because they already declared AGW real. So therefore the lying scientists didn’t lie, because they can’t lie about something that has already been labeled real.
Henry Waxman is calling three CEOs to answer to his committee because they calculated HCR will cost them money. He is OPENLY admitting that since HCR has been labeled as saving money, the CEOs must be lying - by definition. And he’s delusional enough to think he can defy their actual accounting numbers, which simply address a direct tax, in open committee. And why? Because the tax has been labeled a savings by the government, that’s why.
Collectivism requires group insanity to work, because sane people talk about facts that undermine the group lies. So how do they attack this enemy of the group? By labelling them that way - nothing else is necessary.
European Union leaders are cooling on their ambition to fight global warming,...
Waxman would have liked Mussolini.
Once again, the British Parliament proves that it has no equal for brazen arrogance in applying whitewash to a scandal. Now the members can get back to the more important work of padding their expense accounts.
And thanks Ernest_at_the_Beach!
The email evidence only showed what pricks and zealots they were. The evidence for the crime was contained in the code and documentation (remarks) to the code. Anyone with a basic understanding of FORTRAN can see what they were doing to cook the books.
Did Committee on Silly Walks even look at the source code?
Lots of rats running around to find safe holes to hide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
