Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons

[Cartesiantheater]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/phil-jones-exonerated-british-house-commons





"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.”

Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified."


Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data.



"Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous."




Now, how long have I been saying this? lmao at you willfully ignorant fogies (that means you Old Dragon)



However, they DID rule that the way data is shared must change.


But lawmakers who had been investigating the row over global warming science said in a report published Wednesday that climate scientists must publish all their raw data and methods to ensure the research is "irreproachable."



Your only option left is to go against both review of scientists who looked into the matter, and review by elements of the British government, and simply claim that it's all a big fat conspiracy. At which time I will laugh at your stupidity, to my great amusement. :Llol:

[Blu-ray]

Why do I feel this thread will go untouched by the right wingers much like my ACORN thread did?

[Reef Badlaw]

Then touch-on-it, I shall...

The debate can now return to what it originally was; a convergence of non-political, non-economic differences of opinion based on meteorological-data. No carbon-millionaire agendas, no poverty-deaths in Third World countries aim-blamed 'directly' at the emissions of Industry-'A' in Country-'B', no large-scale geoengineering plans to modify the Earth, no incessant green gloom (bemoaning the use of disposable-diapers, then bemoaning the usage of water for laundering, etc.)...

Of course, now the US is stuck with a Jonesian EPA-ruling that declares carbon-dioxide is a lethal gas. Great.

And of course we still have the ever-loyal, poor man's Josef Goebbels; MSNBC, flying their The-Emperor-Is-Wearing-His-New-Clothes banner...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36202287/ns/technology_and_science-science/

-Really, guys ? "... tend to be dying due to factors related-to..."
Gee... the headline says 'Climate Link FOUND'

Oh yeah, funny how the EPA's budget-allotment zoomed-over the 10-billion level this year. -With no increase in staffing. Hmmmmm...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/08/epas-ginormous-power-grab/

Exoneration, Exxonization-or-not, Phil Jones' shenanigans are kaput. Though we may hear from him around the 25th (Earth Day), in some context. One thing we DIDN'T hear about was last-Friday's climate-talks in Bonn, thankfully. Climategate stripped-off the new clothes by pointing-out there weren't any clothes to strip-off.

[Prometheus]

Your only option left is to go against both review of scientists who looked into the matter, and review by elements of the British government, and simply claim that it's all a big fat conspiracy. At which time I will laugh at your stupidity, to my great amusement. :Llol:

“There are two ways to be decievced: one is to believe what isn’t true, the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

-Kierkegaard

[Cartesiantheater]

Then touch-on-it, I shall...

The debate can now return to what it originally was; a convergence of non-political, non-economic differences of opinion based on meteorological-data. No carbon-millionaire agendas, no poverty-deaths in Third World countries aim-blamed 'directly' at the emissions of Industry-'A' in Country-'B', no large-scale geoengineering plans to modify the Earth, no incessant green gloom (bemoaning the use of disposable-diapers, then bemoaning the usage of water for laundering, etc.)...

Of course, now the US is stuck with a Jonesian EPA-ruling that declares carbon-dioxide is a lethal gas. Great.

There is absolutely not a single shred of question that carbon dioxide is a green house gas and that it contributes to warming under the right circumstances.

The question is to what degree and is it something that is important on the global scale (that is, do other factors change the setting for CO2 enough that its effects are not important).

Repeat: There is ZERO QUESTION whatsoever that carbon dioxide is one of many green house gases (methane, water vapor, ozone, nitrous oxide, etc).






Of course, what the ruling shows has nothing to do with climate change, and more about this: it shows that ALL THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIMED JONES WAS LYING TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC OF HIS OWN POLITICAL VIEW MASQUERADING AS SCIENCE ARE WRONG.

Of course, intelligent people have known that for MONTHS.





And of course we still have the ever-loyal, poor man's Josef Goebbels; MSNBC, flying their The-Emperor-Is-Wearing-His-New-Clothes banner...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36202287/ns/technology_and_science-science/

-Really, guys ? "... tend to be dying due to factors related-to..."
Gee... the headline says 'Climate Link FOUND'

Oh yeah, funny how the EPA's budget-allotment zoomed-over the 10-billion level this year. -With no increase in staffing. Hmmmmm...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/08/epas-ginormous-power-grab/

Exoneration, Exxonization-or-not, Phil Jones' shenanigans are kaput.

There WERE NO SHENANIGANS.

The only "shenanigans" that occurred were him talking behind the backs of colleagues or other commentators, calling them idiots, stupids, etc.

There was NO manipulation of data.

There was NO deliberate HIDING of data (only data lost after 10 years due to Jones not thinking he would need it years late).



The dumbasses claimed that Jones tried to "hide" the truth about global climate change, or that he tried to "trick" the public.

For MONTHS smart people have known that that was bullshit. This ruling finds in favor of the smart people, rather than the idiots. That's all this is, Reef.




Though we may hear from him around the 25th (Earth Day), in some context. One thing we DIDN'T hear about was last-Friday's climate-talks in Bonn, thankfully. Climategate stripped-off the new clothes by pointing-out there weren't any clothes to strip-off.

Even if what you originally claimed in your sarcasm was proven true you would still refuse to accept it.


Even now I am almost certain that you STILL think that Jones falsified data, or lied, or tried to "trick" everyone, and that these hacked emails show this. Do you? Yes or no?

(hint: this is how I gauge whether you fit into the category of idiots or smart people)

[DontBeAfraid]

Bump.... BUMP

[Reef Badlaw]

Oww, DBA... Okay, I'm responding...

Alright, CT... when certain outspoken global-warming proponents began buying-up carbon-credit derivatives like common stock, didn't they merit at-least a terse admonishment by Jones? Something like; what I'm present ing is serious and not to be directly capitalized-on for personal gain, while showing no concern to help fix the problem, other than arbitrarily sponsoring more money-making 'scold mankind' schemes or speeches/banquets... ? In my view, Jones should've.

Show me anybody that's praised the CRU since climategate broke.

The world's laughing at East Anglia University, CT. -A signal that donations will be on-the-decline shortly. British academic standards in-general are also a laughing-stock...


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100034453/climategate-cru-whiter-than-er-whitewash-as-world-laughs-at-agw-scam-apologists/

Secondly, Jones should've lopped-off the sucking lipiscules of the IPCC-lamprey that somehow attached itself to the CRU. No, he allowed the 5600-out-of-18000 non peer-reviewed data-sources to be touted as 'scientific' by the IPCC. The International Panel on Climate-Change is a separate joke unto itself.

Jones told The Times he contemplated suicide after the email-scandal broke... Aww, c'mon, Phil... It's only a spotlight...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7097334.ece

Hmmm, I wonder what 'the Cap And Trade conglom' think of the EU's second-straight year of carbon-credit surpluses outpacing emissions-output?

http://energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=3835

Jones/CRU's research fell into the trap of, what Creem Magazine's music-critic: Ken Barnes, called " an unrealistic self-importance, leading-to a greater self-indulgence, leading-to a total breakdown of self-criticism."

[Cartesiantheater]

Oww, DBA... Okay, I'm responding...

Alright, CT... when certain outspoken global-warming proponents began buying-up carbon-credit derivatives like common stock, didn't they merit at-least a terse admonishment by Jones?

Something like; what I'm present ing is serious and not to be directly capitalized-on for personal gain, while showing no concern to help fix the problem, other than arbitrarily sponsoring more money-making 'scold mankind' schemes or speeches/banquets... ? In my view, Jones should've.



This is news to me. So what makes you think it wasn't news to him? Why are conservatives so quick with the conspiracy theories?

Jones is a scientist, not a politician, not a priest, etc.





Show me anybody that's praised the CRU since climategate broke.

How about the Science Assessment Panel that reviewed their work?

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel




After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth,
we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with
integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified
selection of data are not valid.


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



But naturally any scientist or group of scientists, or scientific panels who disagrees with your conclusion is in on the conspiracy.

How many scientific groups or organizations or people actually versed in the science of the issue have to tell you that CRU, Jones, etc didn't falsify data or manipulate etc before you finally believe them? (hint: the answer is infinity, since you are just being willfully ignorant)

The reason why you won't find any one outside of the scientific community and people who closely follow science supporting CRU is because of WIDE SPREAD IGNORANCE- just like we saw on this forum with the likes of Old Dragon, Anarch, etc in the debate about these hacked emails.



The world's laughing at East Anglia University, CT. -A signal that donations will be on-the-decline shortly.

And yet those who are most knowledgeable, actual scientists, are generally not.



British academic standards in-general are also a laughing-stock...

Whether or not that is true has no bearing on the argument. The fact is that actual scientists have found no fault of consequence in the science conducted by this research group, period.




http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100034453/climategate-cru-whiter-than-er-whitewash-as-world-laughs-at-agw-scam-apologists/

A blog? Really?


Predictably (most sceptical commentators could have written the text in advance) Oxburgh found “absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever”. He added: “Whatever was said in the e-mails, the basic science seems to have been done honestly and fairly.” I get it. They spent every day working with impeccable integrity and objectivity to produce absolutely accurate and unchallengeable data; then they went onto their computers for relaxation and played a daft game in which they pretended to “hide the decline”, try the “Nature trick” and censor the publication of conflicting views.

You posted a blog that is stating things that have been DEBUNKED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

At what point does the population at large take the time to EDUCATE itself?

(* note: this blog was NOT written by a scientist, and clearly was not written by anyone actually knowledgeable about the specific scientific details he was commenting on. Pathetic dude.)






Secondly, Jones should've lopped-off the sucking lipiscules of the IPCC-lamprey that somehow attached itself to the CRU. No, he allowed the 5600-out-of-18000 non peer-reviewed data-sources to be touted as 'scientific' by the IPCC.

The report was divided into several categories.

Working group 1: summarizes science. Uses ONLY peer reviewed work.

Working group 2 + Working group 3 use the non peer reviewed material.


As the IPCC is as much a political organization as anything else, clearly any climate scientist working on the pertinent issues would likely be willing to contribute their work for the IPCC to site.

It's just like any other organization that might request data from scientists.




The portion that Jones was involved with is Working group 1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis

I guess you might as well take nearly every major scientific group or academy off your list of where you get your science info from, since almost all of them are represented (from NASA, to the NOAA, MIT, United States Geological Survey, National Climate Data Center, NCAR, Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, etc etc).

All those groups are full of liars and incompetent fools /sarcasm.




The International Panel on Climate-Change is a separate joke unto itself.

In one sense I agree with you. They should only have had WG 1 on their report. The rest is speculation and politics.

However, there had to be SOME group that did this task.





Jones told The Times he contemplated suicide after the email-scandal broke... Aww, c'mon, Phil... It's only a spotlight...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7097334.ece


If you had millions of retarded idiots remaining willfully ignorant about your work (like the blogger you sited early, and perhaps yourself?) and as a result claiming that you were a fraud you might feel a little frustrated yourself.

Scientists are people. Most people would not take being slammed by millions over something that was untrue very well. Some would take the "easy way out." Many would certainly consider it.

Public embarrassment over a falsehood believed by millions has a way of doing that.





Hmmm, I wonder what 'the Cap And Trade conglom' think of the EU's second-straight year of carbon-credit surpluses outpacing emissions-output?

http://energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=3835

Jones/CRU's research fell into the trap of, what Creem Magazine's music-critic: Ken Barnes, called " an unrealistic self-importance, leading-to a greater self-indulgence, leading-to a total breakdown of self-criticism."

Except there was really nothing wrong with Jones' research from a scientific angle.


There was no manipulation of data with the intent to hide truths about climate.

There is no reason not to be surprised that Jones might have been thinking taking the easy way out a little bit in light of the fact that he was INCORRECTLY smeared as a liar and a fraud.

There is no more criticism on Jones' actual scientific work from scientists than any other work. (i.e. peer review has not dismantled his or CRU's work- only conservative bloggers have).



The fact is that "skeptics" like yourself really aren't skeptics: you are closed-minded ideologues who will never accept the possibility that scientists like Jones, etc, aren't all in on some massive conspiracy to deceive the world. The sooner you ADMIT that the sooner we can stop having pointless debates where your claims are debunked but you then put your fingers in your ears and scream "na na na na na! I can't hear you!"

[Reef Badlaw]

It's not a climate conspiracy that I'm wary of. It's a carbon-credit conspiracy and anti-corporate cheerleading by UN millionaire-wannabes... who'll subsequently become a global corporation, of sorts. What's the point, if the CRU acknowledges that Earth experiences 'natural' warm-and-cool cycles ? Why replace one resource-baron with another resource-baron ?

[Zer0th]

On the Oxburgh Report:

You couldn't make this stuff up... the excellent Bishop Hill discovers the likely source of the panel's reading list.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/16/actons-eleven-the-response.html

[Reef Badlaw]

On the Oxburgh Report:

You couldn't make this stuff up... the excellent Bishop Hill discovers the likely source of the panel's reading list.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/16/actons-eleven-the-response.html

Unbelievable... Welcome to 'climategategate'. -Whatta mess. Looks like Jones'll have to revise the CRU's 2000-paper on volcanic-eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere now...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/volcano/