View Single Post
Old 07-29-2011, 02:18 PM   #24
Registered User
'busa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Fair let's leave that aside.
I'd to talk to you about it! Look at all these wonderful threads where we could talk:
Awesome simple evolution comic
A argument for creationism
Is my friend correct on this theory...

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Already labeled out pretty clearly on page one
It is not. I already pointed it out. Show me, in your own words, where the information is at all significantly saying anything that "debunks" the theory.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
This is ridiculous. Then again, you discredit any data to the contrary of your view so I suppose, from your point of view, it makes sense.
No. I discredit data that has no scientific value, is not considered seriously (with good reason) by the scientific community and shows a patter of falsehood and bias.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
This is frankly ridiculous. The individuals involved in such were omitting data points that contradicted their "findings".
Show me. Meanwhile, read this:

'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty over data
'Rigour and honesty' of scientists not in doubt but Sir Muir Russell says UEA's Climatic Research Unit was not sufficiently open

The climate scientists at the centre of a media storm were today cleared of accusations that they fudged their results and silenced critics to bolster the case for man-made global warming.
Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. They did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, the panel found, while key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.
The panel did criticise the scientists for not being open enough about their work, and said they were "unhelpful and defensive" when responding to legitimate requests made under freedom of information (FOI) laws.
The row was sparked when 13 years of emails from CRU scientists were hacked and released online last year. Climate change sceptics claimed they showed scientists manipulating and suppressing data to back up a theory of man-made climate change. Critics also alleged that the scientists abused their positions to cover up flaws and distort the peer review process that determines which studies are published in journals, and so enter the scientific record. Some alleged that the emails cast doubt on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Announcing the findings, Russell said: "Ultimately this has to be about what they did, not what they said."
He added: "The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
The review is the third and final inquiry into the email affair, dubbed "climategate", and effectively clears Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Questions remain over the way in which they responded to requests for information from people outside the conventional scientific arena, some of whom were long-standing critics of Jones.
"We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA," the report, commissioned by UEA, said.
It also criticised the CRU scientists for failing to include proper labels on a 1999 graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation, which was the subject of an infamous email about Jones using a "trick" to "hide the decline". The panel said the result was misleading, though they accepted this was not deliberate as the necessary caveats had been included in the report text.
Separately, it was announced today that Phil Jones has accepted the new post of director of research at CRU. The vice chancellor of UEA, Professor Edward Acton, said this was "not a demotion but a shift in emphasis of role" for Phil Jones. "CRU will be more closely integrated in the bigger school of environmental sciences and a key difference is to place some of the administrative burden that Phil had before this incident on the head of the school," said Prof Acton. Jones will be more free to direct and conduct his own research.
Future FOI requests for the CRU will be directed though the head of the school, Professor Jacquie Burgess, and the ultimate responsibility for such requests will lie with the vice-chancellor, as highlighted in the Russell report.
Originally Posted by 2000_328CI View Post
Such as this very "finding" we are discussing in this very thread. But you immediately discredit them and move along.
I'm still here, aren't I?

Last edited by 'busa; 07-29-2011 at 02:19 PM.
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote