Skip to comments.Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done
Posted on 06/26/2010 9:28:17 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
...not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information in February.
In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claimnamely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was unsubstantiated. The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
And it turns out the main inventor of this hoax, algore, is a rapist at heart. NYPost has the audio of the victim’s horrifying experience at the hands of the goron in his hotel room.
I’m not surprised Michael Mann and others have been cleared. The legal system is mostly bought and paid for by the Democratic Party.
Newsweak lies and lies and lies and lies. And this article is a lie. Its been an official propaganda arm of the DNC since the early 2000’s.
When news of PSU self-investigating came out, everyone here predicted that sort of an outcome.
Get off me you big lummox!
I could be wrong on this, but it was my understanding that Mann was under investigation, not from the "legal system," but from Penn State University on complaints that he deliberately and intentionally fabricated climate change data. The University committee was unable to prove this---which in a university setting is critical. You cannot have legitimate free thought without the ability to make legitimate mistakes. Now, I don't think these were legitimate mistakes, but the bar of proof in an academic setting is vastly higher than in a courtroom. This is what makes the rather watered down language associated with Michael Bellesiles's fraud about guns a few years ago so astounding, that even then they ultimately said, "We think the guy fudged data." In Mann's case, they couldn't prove deliberate fudging---but that in no way suggests his data was "clean."
This was the first thing I noticed too -- adopting the known Eurojourno fraud 'technique' of assigning blame/regret to the cause celebre above the fold, and then substituting after the lead. Bait & switch for the vast majority of good-sheep pEU's who skim the front page and don't read past the jumps.
“If I must choose between the Truth and furthering my agenda, I will choose my agenda. The Truth will reveal us for what we really are.” - Main Stream Media
The Virginia attorney general is investigating whether or not Mann violated Virginia’s “Fraud Against Taxpayers Act” when he used state money to conduct research at the University of Virginia before leaving the school in 2005. The AG has requested emails, files and other documents from the University of Virginia (a public university) related to Dr. Mann’s research. The University is resisting the investigation and has hired outside private counsel to evaluate its options to resist the subpoena issued by the attorney general. Ostensibly the concern is academic freedom.
Here we have a public institution using state money to support research by its professors. The professor may or may not have violated a statute. It would seem to me if the Professor was not in violation of the statute, the University would have no issue with turning over the files. After all the research was funded with public dollars. Certainly the public has the right to review the documents.
I fail to understand the concept of academic freedom somehow being violated if all of the files, letters, emails and other documents are exposed to the sunshine of public scrutiny. If the research methodology is valid, why would the academics not welcome the review?
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
This morning my local paper reran the endangered (climate change)polar bear story complete with a pic of mommy bear and her two cute cubs. Yesterday the envirochackos trotted out their kiddies to hold hands along a NJ beach to protest off-shore drilling. Also read in the paper today that the Tax and Cap bill is about to resurrect itself in Washington. And, of course, we have living proof that all off-shore drilling is evil via the ongoing BP mess.
I resist the conspiracy theory that the BP thing was set up by some caball of oil investors, envirowhackos or even our own Usurping Pres. But there is little doubt the demrats are trying to take advantage it. Every thing else I mentioined above, however, is clearly a well orchestated propaganda campaign to clear the way for Tax and Cap.
NEWSWEEK a.k.a. Leftard Ministry of Propaganda HQ.
If I had some big bucks I’d buy it burn it down.
What liars don't realize is that almost all lies are eventually discovered. Lies just buy a little time. The truth comes out eventually, and then there's hell to pay.
I think, however, that the ordinary standards of academia do not apply to these guys. You’re right, a lot of mathematics wouldn’t happen if you could be prosecuted for a bad proof.
But then, there are no global social consequences if I make an error in mathematics. Most (non-mathematics) academic science is full of guesswork and claims that are quickly disproven. That’s how most disciplines progress.
Not global warming. Not only do people act on whatever is pronounced, but they ignore any science that contradicts the conventional wisdom.
The bar should be higher for them.
Yeah, I’ve been reading a lot about this, and my original point was only that we have to be scrupulously honest about all of this so they can’t weasel out of the truth. My initial post, which I should have rewritten, was inspired by reading a liberal board where the same story was used to completely refute all the mountains of evidence proving that globalcoolingglobalwarmingclimatechangeAGW is bull. ONE prominent story like this is all they need to say “That big story was FALSE!!!!” It’s not fair, but it’s all the libs and the MSNBC droids need. So again, I do believe WE need to be completely scrupulous with the facts—I ain’t changing that position. (Not that you said anything like that.)
Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That, whom we are honoured to have on a tour of Australia at the moment, has responded to this spurious retraction -
As he says, “The reason for all this? WWF, (World Wildlife Fund) which all you need to know.”
The forces of evil know they’re on their last legs and are fighting a hard and dirty rear guard action.