Posted on 04/14/2010 3:59:28 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
The scientists at the heart of the Climategate email scandal were disorganised, poor with figures and naive - but not dishonest, it has been ruled.
An independent inquiry into the work of the University of East Anglia's world-leading global warming unit concluded that the researchers were 'ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention'.
Their record-keeping was not up to scratch and some of the statistical techniques used were out of date.
But their studies into long-term changes in temperature were carried out 'fairly and honestly', the panel chaired by geologist and cross-bench peer Lord Oxburgh found.
The inquiry was set up by the university after hundreds of emails sent by researchers at the UEA's Climatic Research Unit were leaked on the internet.
First revealed by the Daily Mail in November, the files showed scientists plotting how to avoid Freedom of Information requests and appeared to show them discussing how to manipulate data.
Some of the most controversial contained personal attacks on climate change sceptics and one mentioned using a 'trick' to massage years of temperature data 'to hide the decline'.
The seven-member panel analysed at least 11 influential studies published by the CRU over the last 20 years and carried out extensive interviews with the scientists.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Wow, what a great excuse fir scientists!
Who expected any thing but this from a government report about government scientists telling lies to benefit the government. Sheesh you really don't have to be that smart to figure out that the game is grant money for lies.
Gotta try that:
It wasn’t a lie. It was “sloppy speech”. :)
“the panel chaired by geologist and cross-bench peer Lord Oxburgh found.”
So the same like minded clowns are the peer group. This is how the problem began in the first place.
I’d have to disagree based on the clear intention within the leaked emails to suppress dissenting opinion and deliberately to corrupt the peer review process. There’s nothing “sloppy” about that, it’s dishonest. IMHO.
Can some one explain to me how being “sloppy” in science is somehow more valid than just cheating the numbers. Wrong is wrong.
No, they were CRIMINALLY dishonest. And the “investigators” have committed a crime in conspiring to help cover it up.
How many climate skeptics (real scientists) were on this panel?
Pretty sure that’s zero.
So they practiced “sloppy” science and yet they still want to call it “settled” science?
These jerks are criminally corrupt and fraudulent.
Pore wif figgers...
Sure. Right. Check. Bull. Shit.
Hucksters. Ignoring contradictory evidence and opinions isn’t accidental, it’s intentional.
So if I sign my golf scorecard saying that I shot a 63, I’m not cheating, I’m just being sloppy?
“Sloppy” there’s that word again ... sounds like the excuse for another criminal.
“Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a “mistake” and was just “sloppy” when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase.”
Ahaaa! The old Sandy Burglar defense. “Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy”.
That doesn’t explain the widespread conspiring they were doing.
They were being highly dishonest.
The dogma ate my homework. Going back 150 years!
the researchers were 'ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention'.
Their record-keeping was not up to scratch
and some of the statistical techniques used were out of date.
THERE YOU HAVE IT. Tacit admission that the scientific and political community should reject their conclusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.