Welcome to PatsFans.com

CRU exonerated of academic/scientific fraud

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by apple strudel, May 5, 2010.

  1. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2010
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,873
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13

    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?
     
  3. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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?
     
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,873
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13

    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:


    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.
     
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

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

    So MMGW advocates vs. deniers is a religious debate for you? :rofl:...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!......:rofl:.....too funny!
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,084
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2010
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,873
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13





    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.
     
  8. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    But deniers are the guys making claims without decent proof. :confused:
     
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,873
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13

    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 .....??????????:singing: must have been very through investigation...:rolleyes:


    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)


    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.




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

    IOW McIntyre and McKittrick were right boys.





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








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








    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.
     
  10. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    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!
     
  11. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I saw him present a reaction on each of your points and you just blow it off with this response? I think he won.
     
  12. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Ha ha - of course you do. There's nothing in his response that hasn't been refuted a million times over on this board, and his reasoning/translations are absurd unless you don't know how logic works. All he did was read something from the panel and pretend like it meant something other than what it does. Ha ha.
     
  13. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well refuted ... golf clap and all that... I think you've qualified now for a Nobel Prize.
     
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,873
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13





    Link please. I comment specifically on the report you posted. Since the report was just released who has refuted my criticism of the report?


    Where in the report did they address the divergence problem, page number please.


    They don't directly note the conditions of the temp datasets, they do mention the sloppy datakeeping remarkable since they are trying to claim the can track temps to a tenth of a degree using tree ring proxies. They refer to the other datasets (notably the US sets) which are also seriously comprimised (a topic which has been linked by me in other threads).


    They also don't adress thwe computer codes issues discussed in the CRU emails.


    Don't worry I don't expect a real response, just some handwaving and an Algore kupie doll peace prize.
     
  15. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    A lot of your criticisms are the banal old fallbacks. E.g., some small statistical error that when corrected makes little difference in the overall conclusion = hair-raising evidence of deliberate fraud. Oh brother.
    Ha ha - they were looking for evidence of fraud, not validating the results, just whether it was an academically honest endeavor. It looks like you didn't even get the point of the report, which was conveniently bolded for you in OP! Ha ha! I love you PF13 for being the cognitively dissonant person that you are! It makes the time wasted on this board a lot more entertaining!
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2010
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,873
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13

    I cited a specific document that YOU linked. You answer has NOTHING to do with my question or response to the specifics of the document.

    Like I said just handwaving pathetic.




    So they decided after a week there was no fraud? That leaves (based on their conclusions bad science) They admitted in essence (noting the lack of stasticial expertise) that McIntyre and McKittrick were correct in their analysis.


    Very weak as usuall from you.


    Me agruing with you about this topic is like Vince W manhandling a hs jv football center....you are out of your league.
     
  17. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Ha ha - nowhere did they say they agree or disagree with these guys - putting words into peoples mouths is awesome though! Ha ha - what a joke.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>