From: Adrian on 31 Mar 2010 09:49 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The data was unavailable simply because the University was inundated > with requests from climate change sceptics. Mmm. If they're doing "Good Work" (= Duhg agrees with it), they should be left alone to work in peace without any scrutiny or oversight, correct?
From: ash on 31 Mar 2010 09:53 On 31 Mar, 14:36, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 31 Mar, 14:23, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 31 Mar, 13:33, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > Didn't the skeptics make a big fuss about the University of East > > > Anglia emails and they have now been shown to be completely wrong, as > > > usual. > > > > "...The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA > > > authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate > > > change sceptics. > > > > But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were > > > hacked and published online, had manipulated data. > > > > It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, > > > remained intact. > > > > The e-mails were hacked from the university's computer network and > > > were published on the internet just before the Copenhagen climate > > > conference in December 2009..." > > > > Odd coincidence eh? > > > > More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm > > > > -- > > > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > > > Travel broadens the damage. > > > The Commons Science and Technology Committee, also found that there > > had been unreasonable withholding of climate data requested under the > > Freedom of Information Act by scientists who are sceptical about > > Anthropenic Global Warming (AGW) or Man Made Climate Change! > > The data was unavailable simply because the University was inundated > with requests from climate change sceptics. > > > There was also a conspiracy not to peer review scientific papers that > > did not conform with the mainstream view on AGW! > > Wrong again. > > The BBC source says... > > "Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Prof > Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process..." > > > The Government has its own agenda for using AGW as an excuse for > > imposing extra 'carbon' taxes on us, and for appeasing the > > green(washed) lobby. > > It does have a suspect agenda but that is another story and is more > complicated than you try to suggest. > > -- > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%. > > .- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Doug, this 'Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%' Are you a vegitarian/vegan by any chance ?
From: Derek C on 31 Mar 2010 09:58 On 31 Mar, 14:53, ash <ash.fil...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On 31 Mar, 14:36, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%. > > > Doug, this 'Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%' > > Are you a vegitarian/vegan by any chance ?- Hide quoted text - > No, he's just stark staring bonkers! Derek C
From: Albert T Cone on 31 Mar 2010 10:49 Doug wrote: > Didn't the skeptics make a big fuss about the University of East > Anglia emails and they have now been shown to be completely wrong, as > usual. > > "...The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA > authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate > change sceptics. > > But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were > hacked and published online, had manipulated data. > > It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, > remained intact. > > The e-mails were hacked from the university's computer network and > were published on the internet just before the Copenhagen climate > conference in December 2009..." > > Odd coincidence eh? > > More: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm You are, of course, aware that this was not an analysis of the science involved, merely of the actions of the individuals involved in regard to specific allegations of malpractice? Furthermore that significant criticism has been leveled because of the obfuscation of data and methods used, and that this same committee have recommended that a further investigation be carried out as to whether the methodology has been intentionally designed to skew the results? In fact, hardly "one in the eye" for the MMGW skeptics, is it?
From: Albert T Cone on 31 Mar 2010 10:52
Doug wrote: > On 31 Mar, 14:23, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> The Commons Science and Technology Committee, also found that there >> had been unreasonable withholding of climate data requested under the >> Freedom of Information Act by scientists who are sceptical about >> Anthropenic Global Warming (AGW) or Man Made Climate Change! >> > The data was unavailable simply because the University was inundated > with requests from climate change sceptics. They were inundated for requests *because* they had not revealed their data or methodology for scientific scrutiny as they should have done. |