HuffPost: 'Climategate' Investigation Vindicates Scientists, Finds Research Reliable

[Thiebear]

So you're saying I didn't accurate predict what was going to happen?

You don't see the hypocricy?

It's okay to not practice what you preach?

(now getting to the report).

How could you be anything but correct.

You shouted victory and then said those that disagree with you would well, disagree with you. Seems like its a given.

If there are conflicting statments in a controversial report it should be pointed out.

The report should be reviewed by a 3rd party

Your third point is pointing at 11%, but accurate.

[alexey]

We are so insignificant and tiny compared to the Earth ...

We are certainly significant enough to **** it up big time.

[MEANDWARF]

Doesn't change things. Damage already done.

[PeterMP]

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopReaders of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

Mr. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

But where is the science misconduct?

He doesn't point to a single piece of it in his whole article.

The only thing of substance he says is:

"

But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

"

So Mann et. al. shouldn't have the right to decide where they are going to publish, act as editors, reviewers, and buy subscriptions to?

[twa]

But where is the science misconduct?

So Mann et. al. shouldn't have the right to decide where they are going to publish, act as editors, reviewers, and buy subscriptions to?

A concerted effort at silencing dissenting opinion and refusing basic data needed to verify conclusions is not GOOD conduct...nor good science.

Both were done and recognized....politics in science is a cancer

[PeterMP]

A concerted effort at silencing dissenting opinion and refusing basic data needed to verify conclusions is not GOOD conduct...nor good science.

Both were done and recognized....politics in science is a cancer

There is nothing wrong with silencing dissenting opinions (from the scientific literaturer) if the evidence doesn't support the dissenting opinion

IF a scientific journal decided to publish some garbage by the flat Earth Society that tried to claim the Earth was flat, then scientists SHOULD and WOULD separate themselves from that journal.

The community in this scientific field decided that Climate Research had not done a proper job of reviewing the Soon paper. The end result is editors (who are also scientists and normally have other full time jobs) decided to resign. That is PEER REVIEW (the peers in the field (the editors) decided the paper was garbage enough it was worth resigning over). If others felt differenty, they could have stepped up to the plate.

The CRU had real issues giving people data. They had signed non-disclosure agreements with various entities. Their responses in some cases where snarky and mean, but they really weren't free share all of their data (and despite efforts post-scandal for them to do something about it, they still can only make about 97% of their underlying data public).

The underlying point here is important. Jones et al. were SECONDARY sources for the data. Others were free to pursue the PRIMARY sources of the data (the governments that collect local climate data).

***EDIT**

I want to come back and make a comment about the Climate Research journal issue. One of the other issues here is that people (the person that wrote the editorial you are quoting) are pretending like we actually learned something substantially new via these e-mails.

That isn't true. Three editors resigned from Climate Research as a result of the paper being published, but they didn't resign secretly or hide why the resigned. In fact, they put out a statement explaining why they were resiging, what there issues where with the paper, and what they thought should have been done with the paper.

All the e-mails confirm is that other people in the field had (as Jones and Mann weren't the editors that resigned) the same the same issues with the paper. And that the issue WAS NOT that the paper was TRUE and was going to reveal the truth about climate change.

[PeterMP]

So you were ALL OVER the Judge about his owning stock..

No matter when he got it, when he sold it.. and everything else was secondary.

And then you post THIS?

nice to have it both ways isn't it, make every discussion easier.

There is a difference between a PERSON benefitting from stock value and a non-profit institution benefitting from grant money.

I get a multi-million dollar grant, I see a very little bit of that in terms of an increase in my salary. The people running my institution see none of it in terms of their salary.

My stocks go up, I see all of that money.

[Thiebear]

There is a difference between a PERSON benefitting from stock value and a non-profit institution benefitting from grant money.

I get a multi-million dollar grant, I see a very little bit of that in terms of an increase in my salary. The people running my institution see none of it in terms of their salary.

My stocks go up, I see all of that money.

Missed the point:

Someone that just recently pointed out a 'detail' and held onto it like a pitbull is going to point out others doing the same thing in a different topic.

Not talking about money at all.. just 2 sentences in a 3 page report that may or may not be correct.

[NavyDave]

So research for the Global Warming Scam is now reliable (allegedly) just in time to ram thru Cap and Tax before the November elections.

I wonder if the feet dragging on an immediate response to the Gulf oil spill was tied to this especially since some how obama used an oil leak was used to discuss cap and trade.

[twa]

There is a difference between a PERSON benefitting from stock value and a non-profit institution benefitting from grant money.

I get a multi-million dollar grant, I see a very little bit of that in terms of an increase in my salary. The people running my institution see none of it in terms of their salary.

My stocks go up, I see all of that money.

So you claim gaining new grants is a neutral proposition w/o benefit?

as to the other post the author claimed 4 papers rejected w/o basis and personal knowledge of others...is he a hack to be simply dismissed??

This is not some nameless source bs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

[Thiebear]

Like i said: I'll admit defeat but this does make me turn around a bit and wonder:

He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."

No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

I don't care if you believe the data or don't believe the data.

This man should never have been on the review board.

[alexey]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

Obviously these perfectly good manuscripts were rejected because they contained substantial challenges to the received wisdom, right?

Consider doing some research on the author of that op-ed.

[Bang]

So research for the Global Warming Scam is now reliable (allegedly) just in time to ram thru Cap and Tax before the November elections.

I wonder if the feet dragging on an immediate response to the Gulf oil spill was tied to this especially since some how obama used an oil leak was used to discuss cap and trade.

You may as well wonder why the email scandal broke just before the Copenhagen conference. I'll bet in your zeal to see the science disproven you never even considered the timing of that.

Honestly, the way you see boogey men only around one side of the corner is so comical I almost wonder if you're a caricature created by some humorist somewhere.

~Bang

[twa]

Obviously these perfectly good manuscripts were rejected because they contained substantial challenges to the received wisdom, right?

Consider doing some research on the author of that op-ed.

I could of swore I even included some research on him,but feel free to cast him as a hack if you wish.

added

I bet you just love the presidential panel on the drilling moratorium

[PeterMP]

So you claim gaining new grants is a neutral proposition w/o benefit?

as to the other post the author claimed 4 papers rejected w/o basis and personal knowledge of others...is he a hack to be simply dismissed??

This is not some nameless source bs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

It has benefit. It allows you to conduct research, which is what people in the sciences want to do.

It just doesn't have the benefit that many people seem to think it does.

Your taking his word for it that they are "perfectly good manuscripts".

Doing research in these fields isn't trivial, especially with a full time job (which I'm assuming he's doing at the CATO institute). The take time, resources, and man power (in the terms of students that I doubt he has at CATO).

IF he believes he has a really relevant point, he should post the papers and the rejection letters on the web.

I got a perfectly good manuscript rejected a month or so ago too. The journal didn't even have it reviewed. The editor just stated that they (he) didn't think it was important enough for their journal. I sent it somewhere else, and it was accepted. Somebody out there must be politically out to get me.

Since Spencer runs a web site where he does put up lots of stuff, I can actually comment on him. First, he recently got what he wanted published published to a certain extent. His biggest problem is that he wants to draw conclusions that his results don't support.

He wants to conclude changes in clouds HAVE caused warming. His results don't support that. He has now had something accepted where he will state that changes in cloulds CAN cause warming, which his results to support. But there isn't any evidence that the EVER have, much less that they currently ARE.

[The Evil Genius]

Honestly, the way you see boogey men only around one side of the corner is so comical I almost wonder if you're a caricature created by some humorist somewhere.

~Bang

Or a mod having fun with people.

:evilg:

[alexey]

I could of swore I even included some research on him,but feel free to cast him as a hack if you wish.

Some degree of hackery is clearly visible with this guy.

[Thiebear]

Okay so one of the guys on the panel was not a member of the university for 18 years?

[Bang]

Or a mod having fun with people.

:evilg:

:laugh:

OK, fess up! Which one of you plays Navy Dave?

~Bang

[twa]

Some degree of hackery is clearly visible with this guy.

I'm pretty sure that is a requirement to write op-eds in the WSJ,such is life:)

His academic past certainly could be considered a impairment in some circles as well....though I'm a bit surprised it is to you.:halo:

added

Do you also subscribe to the "those that cannot do,Teach" theory?

added

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

[Larry]

:laugh:

OK, fess up! Which one of you plays Navy Dave?

~Bang

I have him on the 15th.

[alexey]

I'm pretty sure that is a requirement to write op-eds in the WSJ,such is life:)

His academic past certainly could be considered a impairment in some circles as well....though I'm a bit surprised it is to you.:halo:

...

added

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

Yeah it appears that his scientific contributions, although existent, are dwarfed by his hackery.

added

Do you also subscribe to the "those that cannot do,Teach" theory?

I do not subscribe to sweeping generalizations unless they are offered as humor or supplemented by a boatload of qualifiers.

[twa]

Yeah it appears that his scientific contributions, although existent, are dwarfed by his hackery.

Thus making him infinitely more credible the Al Gore?

Just trying to find your baseline for a hack here;)

[alexey]

Thus making him infinitely more credible the Al Gore?

To Al Gore's credit, he doesn't claim that journals pass on his perfectly good scientific papers because there is a vast conspiracy.

Just trying to find your baseline for a hack here;)

Hacks defy baselining because they come in too many different flavors.

[twa]

To Al Gore's credit, he doesn't claim that journals pass on his perfectly good scientific papers because there is a vast conspiracy.

Hacks defy baselining because they come in too many different flavors.

There would be good reason for that with Gore though.:evilg:

What exactly are his credentials?