Posted on 03/30/2010 9:36:20 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
LONDON - The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said they had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
In their report released Wednesday, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."
The 14-member committee's investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Who ran that inquiry? Sergeant Schultz?
This is what happens when the enviroloonies get to “investigate” the enviroloonies. YES! It WAS manipulated. Do your job ***holes!
Ooooooh! I smell ‘cover-up’.
I guess the Fortran was from something else. A video game or something.
What they don’t understand in the House of Commons is that a consensus doesn’t make a theory correct. Global warming theory got way off track right at the start and it doesn’t mean anything that a lot of people who aren’t experts in climate science believe in that theory.
“Who ran that inquiry? Sergeant Schultz?”
No, it was under the supidvision of Dr. Finagle, discoverer of Finagle’s Invariable Constant, A.K.A. the Finagle factor.
Oh, Hans Blix!
I actually feel sorry for western political leaders that they are getting such bad advice from wacky, mediocre scientists who developed global warming theory. The skeptics have much stronger scientific evidence but they don’t have the msm on their side.
Probably GE, who after polluting the Hudson River, is associating itself with the Reagan Library to clean up its image instead of the river.
Not to mention tehir support through business deals f boththe Nazi and Soviet regimes - and of course, ownership of teh vile MSNBC.
How do they claim he did it right when he does not have the source data?
The issue isn’t whether it was manipulated, but whether it can be replicated. Whether it was intentionally manipulated matters only to the lawyers and the courts. As far as the scientific question goes, its only replication that matters.
Since they’ve thrown their raw data away and not documented - even internally - how they manipulated that raw data, it cannot be replicated. Which means that all of their work has the same value as a peck of bat guano.
Yup, the fox declared that no foxes were ever in the hen house and the hen house is safe.
Can we trust the 'Climategate' inquiry?
Answer: No.
its > it’s
[”Hide the decline” was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded.]
Nope, the guys on this committee are not skeptics. I’ll bet the “scientists” at East Anglia have a few slightly used weather stations they’d like to sell them.
Wasn’t that what was in the emails? That they had fudged the numbers? So, they lied in their own private emails to one another? What a crock.
That was going to be my next question.
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.