CRU exonerated of academic/scientific fraud - New England Patriots Forums

***apple strudel*** · 05-05-2010, 08:16 AM

An international panel of scientists have investigated CRU's methodology and results and found no evidence of academic fraud. Of course, fanatics like PF13 will surely scream conspiracy and cover-up, fueled by a misunderstanding of the subject matter and the scientific process. In the end, their worst offense was not bringing in a professional statistician. Their results were right, but the methodology was not optimal. Have at it deniers!

Quote:

The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on the integrity of the Unit’s research and whether as far as could be determined the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data. The Panel worked by examining representative publications by members of the Unit and subsequently by making two visits to the University and interviewing and questioning members of the Unit. Not all the panel were present on both occasions but two members were present on both occasions to maintain continuity. About fifteen person/days were spent at the University discussing the Unit’s work.

Quote:

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.

[quote]A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...statements/SAP Slashdot Science Story | Second Inquiry Exonerates Climatic Research Unit

***patsfan13*** · 05-05-2010, 10:08 AM

Actually the original report did damn the procedures used at CRU and found serious problems. I will post the data from the report when I get home this evening to blow up the CRU spin you cite.

Has P Jones been reinstated, or is he still out?

***apple strudel*** · 05-05-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Actually the original report did damn the procedures used at CRU and found serious problems. I will post the data from the report when I get home this evening to blow up the CRU spin you cite.

Has P Jones been reinstated, or is he still out?

I love that what you consider "serious problems", unconcerned scientists do not. PF13 - you should just publish a paper on your views - you will either be made famous for your brilliant evisceration of the "conspiracy" or be laughed out the door. I wonder which will happen?

***patsfan13*** · 05-05-2010, 07:37 PM

You are aware of the amount of research money being thrown at scientist by governments who are paying for results they want.

BTW this comment was laughable:

Quote:

Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention.

No comments on the code used that produce the same results no mater the data or the concerns inside CRu for the problems with their data sets.

I am busy just now but will get the facts out to you, Sorry about the blasphemy against your MMGW religion. The whole climate change scam seems to be religion for atheist.

wistahpatsfan · 05-05-2010, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

... The whole climate change scam seems to be religion for atheist.

That sentence is foolish and you know it (I think....)

So MMGW advocates vs. deniers is a religious debate for you?

...you take out atheists and environmentalists all in one sentence! Good job, Cletus!

What about the puppy eaters? Aren't they all involved in promoting MMGW? And the terrorists! Don't forget the terrorists!

I can't wait for your next set of talking points!......

.....too funny!

***Patters*** · 05-05-2010, 08:05 PM

I think the deniers played their best cards, then hit below the belt by trying to exaggerate the meaning of some hacked emails. The scientists of course are just scientists, for the most part not caught up in the political debate, and it's no surprise that their research was honest. At this point, it's pretty obvious that the deniers are going the way of the flat earth society. It's striking how quiet the deniers have become some their desperate gambit with CRU. I suppose all the weird weather that's causing floods and death in red states is enough to reduce the garbage science of the deniers.

***patsfan13*** · 05-05-2010, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

That sentence is foolish and you know it (I think....)

So MMGW advocates vs. deniers is a religious debate for you?

...you take out atheists and environmentalists all in one sentence! Good job, Cletus!

What about the puppy eaters? Aren't they all involved in promoting MMGW? And the terrorists! Don't forget the terrorists!

I can't wait for your next set of talking points!......

.....too funny!

I view religion as a belief without proof.

The ability of believers to ignore the role of money and power is amazing, but when the population is ignorant of basic science it is to be expected.

***apple strudel*** · 05-05-2010, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

I view religion as a belief without proof.

The ability of believers to ignore the role of money and power is amazing, but when the population is ignorant of basic science it is to be expected.

But deniers are the guys making claims without decent proof.

***patsfan13*** · 05-05-2010, 09:22 PM

Did you read the 'report' in the OP?

The panel was announced on March 22, 2010, gee they were announced did and investigation and delivered their conclusions on April 12th, really .....??????????

must have been very through investigation...

BTW the head of the panel is involved in a firm that makes money from carbon sequestration, , btw should CRU be in charge of investigating itself? I mean did anyone want ENRON investigating itself with people Ken Lay picked????

So let's examine the conclusion of the report. More than 4 sentences. I would note that this is a public domain document freely distributed and not from a website with financial copyright interest (ie a commercial website like si.com)

Quote:

Conclusions
1. 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.

So between Mar 22 when we were appointed and April 12th we found shabby process but didn't find evidence that the bad practices were deliberate.

They had 'informal' procedures and were disorganized.... great for people trying to say they can deduce from tree rings temps within a tenth of a degree 400 years ago....

These are the guys who are predicting the future of the climate, sounds like a description of the 3 stooges do climate.

Quote:

2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close
collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual
benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.

Translation they aren't statisticians and their conclusion are based on statistical analysis.

IOW McIntyre and McKittrick were right boys.

Quote:

3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were
important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of
environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted
a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by
government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of
processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and
seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in
government.

Translation the data sets are crap, que the Three Stooges again Perhaps Jones can play Moe.

Quote:

4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of
Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the
CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties
should stay with those who collected it.
Submitted to the University 12 April 2010

They are OK with hiding the data from independent analysis. BTW what do they know about UK FOI laws?????

Quote:

Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is
important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately
misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings.
Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and
the need to use the best possible methods

Yeah they are incompetent but not lying and exaggerating on purpose. Great, so this is the best they have to exonerate themselves.

BTW the head of the panel Oxburgh on a T program with surprise Trenbeth of CRU email fame who was involved in running the 'hide the decline' scam (the divergence problem for those who are interested) from 2009:

YouTube - Lord Oxburgh - burning coal

Oxburgh is a MMGW proponent with a monetary interest in CO2 being a threat to human existence.

As to the rest of the panels 'report', most of it consist of restating what CRU did and how science and stastics are hard and they are really nice sincere guys.

This is a pretty pathetic attempt at a whitewash. Embarrassing. But as we can see the believers will accept anything.

***apple strudel*** · 05-06-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Stuff

Ha ha - you're like a broken record. None of your "translations" bear any resemblance to what is written in the report. Ha ha. I love it!