Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam
Most recent? A good read and take
Stringer?s Amendment
Stringer proposed the following final paragraph for the report:
98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU?s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly?s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU?s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.?
Instead, the Committee adopted the following:
98. The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world of science. Much rests on the accuracy and integrity of climate science. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. It is, however, important to bear in mind the considered view of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, that ?the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal?.132 While we do have some reservations about the way in which UEA operated, the SAP review and the ICCER set out clear and sensible recommendations.In our view it is time to make the changes and improvements recommended and with greater openness and transparency move on.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/24/s...mmittee-again/ |
So, your reponse is to offer a clip from a Steve McIntyre page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre
One that doesn't seem to be saying what you think it's saying.
What do you think this page is saying?
You do realize don't you that investigative panels are by definition not qualified to "investigate" the science? They are qualified to investogate the ethics, but not the science. The science is investigated by scientists.
(And, all the investigations found no evidence of ethical violations directly involving the CRU datasets, btw. the "ethical" violations they did find all involved minor matters, like passing around a rude cartoon of Sen Inhofe, improperly discussing other scientists data before publication, and possibly a few cases of scientists using funds for purposes they did not reveal in their grant applications.)
Is that what you want, to take science out of the hands of scientists and get some government or academic agency to "declare" the science true or false?
Dude, that's fucking insane. What happens when the politicians change and teh next group comes along and DECLARES the science be some other way?
So, you take a page from an unqualified critic, that says that he thinks taht some other critics amendment complaining that the science wasn't investigated, only the ethics, should have been put in the report rather than what the comittee as a whle decided to publish, and you think this means what exactly?