'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective'

[Renae]

None of the three official inquiries into the illegal release of climate emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) showed a "serious concern for the truth", according to a report commissioned by Lord Lawson's sceptical thinktank.

The report, which has been criticised for "bias", contends that none of the inquiries were objective and comprehensive and that public confidence in climate science would not be restored until a thorough investigation is carried out.

Lord Lawson called the three official inquiries, one by the House of Commons science and technology select committee and two commissioned by the university, "highly defective". But he has consistently refused to reveal the identities of the donors behind the secretive Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) which paid for the report.

The inquiry's author, Andrew Montford, criticised the previous inquiries for not investigating the most serious allegations and for failing to ask key questions. For example, Prof Phil Jones, the head of UEA's climatic research unit, had been criticised for writing emails about deleting emails that were apparently the subject of a freedom of information act (FoI) request. He has denied deleting any emails to avoid FoI requests, but the main inquiry into the emails conducted by Sir Muir Russell never asked him or any of the other scientists about this.

Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog, also criticised the MPs' inquiry and a third review led by Lord Oxburgh, for failing to address an allegation of fraud relating to a paper that Jones published in 1990.

'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report for sceptic thinktank rules | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Good Stuff.

 

[Deuce]

So we have an inquiry into an investigation of bias that proclaims that the investigation of the bias was biased while the inquiry itself is being accused of bias.

 

[bowerbird]

'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report for sceptic thinktank rules | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Good Stuff.

Says it all really

Lord Lawson called the three official inquiries, one by the House of Commons science and technology select committee and two commissioned by the university, "highly defective". But he has consistently refused to reveal the identities of the donors behind the secretive Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) which paid for the report.

'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report for sceptic thinktank rules | Environment | guardian.co.uk

This is just another case of a conspiracy theorist screaming "I KNOW there is something in there!! You lot are just hiding it from me!!"

I mean how many inquiries must there be before these people are satisfied?

 

[danarhea]

Says it all really



'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report for sceptic thinktank rules | Environment | guardian.co.uk

This is just another case of a conspiracy theorist screaming "I KNOW there is something in there!! You lot are just hiding it from me!!"

I mean how many inquiries must there be before these people are satisfied?

I see the word think tank, and that tells me everything I need to know. If you hear the word think tank, run like hell because:

1) Nobody is thinking.

AND

2) There is a tank coming in your general direction, and it's being driven by nuts.

:mrgreen:

 

[Deuce]

Thread Necromancy Top 10?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Climategate has been very effectively swept under the rug. Good example of how powerful lib media is.

 

[Deuce]

Climategate has been very effectively swept under the rug. Good example of how powerful lib media is.

Or, maybe, nothing fraudulent actually happened and even a cursory investigation of the context of those emails spells that out quite plainly.

Do you have any idea how many assumptions you have to make to consider those emails proof of fraud?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Or, maybe, nothing fraudulent actually happened and even a cursory investigation of the context of those emails spells that out quite plainly.

Do you have any idea how many assumptions you have to make to consider those emails proof of fraud?

I just don’t know what to say, it’s like we live on two different planets, we could see the same car wreck and put opposite drivers at fault. No point in discussing this really.

 

[Deuce]

I just don’t know what to say, it’s like we live on two different planets, we could see the same car wreck and put opposite drivers at fault. No point in discussing this really.

I thought so. You think there's solid proof of fraud, yet you cannot even present any evidence in favor of it.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Or, maybe, nothing fraudulent actually happened and even a cursory investigation of the context of those emails spells that out quite plainly.

Do you have any idea how many assumptions you have to make to consider those emails proof of fraud?

None... It's pretty openly discussed issues of corruption.

The fact of the matter with the leaking of these emails is how they had been painstakingly edited in order to protect the identity of the leaker.

Someone is not going to go through this type of effort for hundreds of pages of emails because there was nothing going on.

 

[Deuce]

None... It's pretty openly discussed issues of corruption.

The fact of the matter with the leaking of these emails is how they had been painstakingly edited in order to protect the identity of the leaker.

Someone is not going to go through this type of effort for hundreds of pages of emails because there was nothing going on.

It wasn't a leak, it was a hack. Someone broke in and pulled every email with certain key words.

Like I said, the "open discussion of corruption" requires you to make some assumptions about context. Assumptions that prove false given closer attention.

 

[BmanMcfly]

It wasn't a leak, it was a hack. Someone broke in and pulled every email with certain key words.

Like I said, the "open discussion of corruption" requires you to make some assumptions about context. Assumptions that prove false given closer attention.

HAHAHAHA You actually still believe that... No, the INITIAL reports were that it was a hack, then the truth came out that it was leaked, and SOME news agencies had held onto the emails for almost 6 months before the emails surfaced.

The fact is that SOMEONE WITHIN the CRU had compiled and released these emails.

And besides that, ALL the "investigations" were conducted by people / groups with a vested interest in AGW theory being accurate as these hacks what call themselves scientists propose....