Climategate Whitewash

National Post ^ | April 16, 2010 | Peter Foster

[raptor22]

Climategate scientists cleared of wrongdoing” read the headline in yesterday’s Post. Who expected anything else? The two self-inquiries launched by the University of East Anglia into its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were always destined to produce whitewashes, as did a recent UK parliamentary inquiry, and as will an “independent” review by the UN.

The first of the UEA reports, from a committee headed by ardent warmist and anti-carbon profiteer Lord Oxburgh, appeared this week. As Lawrence Solomon points out elsewhere on this page, the choice of Lord Oxburgh indicated that the fix was always in for an inquiry which fails to address, let alone probe, most of the major issues. And yet there is a mountain of condemnation-by-faint-exoneration between the lines of the report’s ridiculously slim five pages.

[Talisker]

How much CO2 is that volcano in Iceland spewing into the air?

Compared to, oh I don’t know, all the cars in the world, for example?

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[allmendream]

Yes, I recall the line “sloppy but not fraudulent” or some such.

Sloppy was being caught. Fraudulent was saying that they needed to use a “trick” to “hide the decline”.

I want someone to explain to me, a scientist, when it is OK for a scientist to use a “trick” to “hide the decline”.

Can someone explain to me when, as an objective searcher for the data that will explain the phenomena, when it is OK to use a “trick” to “hide the decline”?

If I was researching a drug, and used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in survivability among patients; would anyone suggest that I was being “sloppy but not fraudulent”?

[sima_yi]

If I was researching a drug, and used a “trick” to “hide the decline” in survivability among patients...

If a drug researcher used a "trick" to "hid the decline", his company would be sued out of existance, and the researcher, his boss, and the CEO would be in jail for a long time.

[N. Theknow]

Maybe they can get Dan Ra^ther to investigate and certify the climate research material as "fake, but accurate."

[Uncle Miltie]

They found the key “Hockey Stick” analysis to be totally fraudulent, but its creators innocent.

Yah, sure.

[allmendream]

And rightly so.

I just want someone to explain to me how a scientist using a “trick” to “hide the decline” is somehow “sloppy but not fraudulent”.

“Hide” indicates the intent to commit scientific fraud. A scientist doesn't “hide” results, and if they do, when the results come out; there is HELL to pay.... unless apparently you are a climate “scientist”, and then everything is A-OK..... you were just “sloppy”.

[seawolf101]

EAST ANGLIA'S DISTINGUISHED REVIEW PANEL

[neverdem]

LOL! Thanks, I needed that pic!