Lord Monckton...hero of Denialism
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
I didn't make an assertion. I asked you a question. If you don't know the answer to the question just say so and that will end the matter. If you do know the answer to the question please answer it. Thank you.
Notice the question mark at the end of my post.
It all depends on the independence of the tribunal. That is what I am inquiring about.
I trust in the good faith of the members of the forum.
Of course, nothing will convince the most determined climate deniers that 'ClimateGate' was an overblown non-scandal, and that the research done by the scientists at East Anglia University is sound. Not even news that the third major independent investigation into the so-called ClimateGate scientists' work, which was just completed, and has vindicated the scientists of nearly all charges of wrongdoing.
The other side of that observation is equally valid.. There is no amount of logic, evidence or otherwise that will alter the views of the alarmists.
Like I mentioned to Tonnington, my position was/is not to debate the validity of Climategate, it was simply to state that the "investigation" was not independent or objective. Clearly, even you can see the conflict of interest in having the CRU "investigate" themselves and make any kind of claim that it was independent.
Like I mentioned to Tonnington, my position was/is not to debate the validity of Climategate, it was simply to state that the "investigation" was not independent or objective. Clearly, even you can see the conflict of interest in having the CRU "investigate" themselves and make any kind of claim that it was independent.
I neither deny nor accept Global Warming. I asked a question about the independence of the tribunals that investigated Climategate. So far no one has answered my question about the independence of the tribunals. Can you? If you can't that's ok, just say so. But if you answer my question I would sincerely appreciate a well reasoned answer to my question. Thanks.
I read them and the sources they used.
An easy google search will get you that info.
Here's what Google turned up: Pat Michaels: The Climategate Whitewash Continues: Don't Believe the 'Independent Reviews' About Goings on at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - WSJ.com
The Wall Street Journal article comes to a different conclusion on the independence of the tribunals.
Well then you should have asked, whomever it is that you heard the rumor from. As to the question, I've only seen complaints for one of those investigations. A man who had business dealings with biofuel and some renewable energy firms. Pretty weak complaints, and that's only one of the inquiries.
I did, but I also noticed the question stems from a rumor. In the future, if you want a question verified you should ask whomever it is you heard the rumor from, or try digging yourself.
So, you asserted it, now show your work. Where's the evidence? And there was more than one investigation. CRU and Jones were cleared in three separate investigations.
Wow, you know how to highlight.
Now tell us how they didn't work indenpendantly from the CRU?
Forgot to mention the other 4 investigations as well and I'm real shocked.
Supose you poured over the emails yourself....where's the fraud? Is it hidden by pixie dust?
Also tell us why no other investigation was needed or demanded by all the governemnts involved in the UN.....which means all of them on the planet.
I'd figure at least one nut out their who thinks they have a case would have tried to bring the science to court......still waiting for that. Actually I think I heard something about an state attorney general trying to muster up something and it may have worked if it didn't keep getting trown out of court for lack of evidence.
Now where was I...ah yes your hero Monckton...another video for you to ignore coming today.
Ciao.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.
Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."[13]
Independent Climate Change Email Review
In July 2010, the British investigation comissioned by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, and announced in December 2009, published its final report saying it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[15] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.[9]
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.
Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."[13]
Independent Climate Change Email Review
In July 2010, the British investigation comissioned by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, and announced in December 2009, published its final report saying it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[15] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.[9]
.. And you know how to spam threads..
I'm guessing that you opted out of your reading comprehension classes waaayyy back in the day...
It's not that the CRU didn't work independently, it is that they are not an independent body.
Here.. have fun discussing the legitimacy of the reviewers' independence..
APPENDIX 1: REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS
TEAM CV's
Sir Muir Russell, KCB, FRSE (Chair)
Sir Muir Russell was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow
from 2003 to 2009. During that period he was Convener of Universities Scotland, a
member of the Universities UK Main Board, a Trustee of the Universities
Superannuation Scheme, and a member of the UCAS Board. He graduated from the
University of Glasgow in 1970 with a First in Natural Philosophy and took up a career
in the civil service. He was appointed Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Office in
1998, and was the first Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Executive following the
establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. He has honorary degrees from the
Universities of Strathclyde, Glasgow and Edinburgh. He currently chairs the Judicial
Appointments Board for Scotland. He is also a Trustee of the Glasgow School of Art,
a Member of the Board of the Moredun Research Institute, and the Chairman of the
Dunedin Concert Trust.
Professor Geoffrey Boulton, OBE, FRS, FRSE
Professor Geoffrey Boulton is Regius Professor Emeritus of Geology and former Vice
Principal of the University of Edinburgh. His research is in the fields of glaciology,
glacial geology and Quaternary science, and has been awarded several international
awards and honorary degrees for his scientific work. He currently has research
projects in Antarctica and Iceland. He has been the UK representative to the
International Union of Geosciences and to the International Union of Quaternary
Sciences. He is a member of the UK Prime Minister‘s Council for Science and
Technology, chairs the Advisory Board of the University of Heidelberg and is
General Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland‘s national academy.
He has been a member of the Councils of the Natural Environment Research Council
and the Royal Society, a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution, the Scottish Science Advisory Committee and the Scottish Higher
Education Funding Council. He was formerly Head of the Department of Geology
and Geophysics and Provost of Science and Engineering in the University of
Edinburgh.
Professor Peter Clarke, FInstP, CPhys, FIET, CEng
Peter Clarke is Professor of Physics at the University of Edinburgh. He has a B.Sc in
Electronics Engineering (Southampton University, 1980) and a D.Phil in Particle
Physics (Oxford 1985). He was a CERN Fellow before being appointed as a lecturer
first at Brunel University in 1987 and then University College London in 1993. He
was promoted to Reader and then Professor in 2001 and was Head of the Particle
Physics Research Group between 2001-04. He moved to the University of Edinburgh
in 2004 to take up the Chair of eScience and later become Director of the National
eScience Centre 2006-09.
David Eyton MA, MIoM3, CEng.
David Eyton is Group Head of Research & Technology at BP, and was appointed in
April 2008. He is accountable for technology strategy and its implementation across
BP and conducting research and development (R&D) in areas of corporate renewal.
In this role, David oversees the R&D capability of the company and also sits on the
UK Energy Technologies Institute and Science¦Business Innovation Boards. During
his career he has held a number of Petroleum Engineering, Commercial and Business
Management positions in the UK, Australia, Trinidad and USA.
Professor James Norton, CDir, CEng, CITP, FIoD, FIET, FBCS, FRSA
Aged fifty-seven, Jim Norton is an independent director and policy adviser. He is an
external member of the Board of the UK Parliament's Office of Science &
Technology (POST) and council member of the Parliamentary IT Committee
(PITCOM). Jim is a Non-Executive Director of F&C Capital & Income Investment
Trust plc, where he chairs the Audit & Management Engagement Committee. He is a
Board Member and Trustee of the Foundation for Information Policy Research
(FIPR), as well as a member of the 'Electronic Communications Expert Advisory
Panel' for the Irish Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). Jim is a
Vice-President and Trustee of the BCS – Chartered Institute for IT, an External
Examiner for the Institute of Directors, and Chair of the IT Policy Panel for the
Institution of Engineering & Technology. He also chairs the Steering Group for the
Secure Software Development Partnership (SSDP) of the Technology Strategy Board.
Also, you should really look up the word 'commission' or 'commissioned'. When you commission a group, you grant them authority after they request permission to validate the accuracy of a project. The university of East Anglia didn't go head hunting for the people they like -- so there should be no trepidation here about them tainting the independence of the review.
The group wasn't in cahoots with East Anglia, quacker-jack.
APPENDIX 1: REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS
TEAM CV's
Sir Muir Russell, KCB, FRSE (Chair)
Sir Muir Russell was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow
from 2003 to 2009. During that period he was Convener of Universities Scotland, a
member of the Universities UK Main Board, a Trustee of the Universities
Superannuation Scheme, and a member of the UCAS Board. He graduated from the
University of Glasgow in 1970 with a First in Natural Philosophy and took up a career
in the civil service. He was appointed Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Office in
1998, and was the first Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Executive following the
establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. He has honorary degrees from the
Universities of Strathclyde, Glasgow and Edinburgh. He currently chairs the Judicial
Appointments Board for Scotland. He is also a Trustee of the Glasgow School of Art,
a Member of the Board of the Moredun Research Institute, and the Chairman of the
Dunedin Concert Trust.
Professor Geoffrey Boulton, OBE, FRS, FRSE
Professor Geoffrey Boulton is Regius Professor Emeritus of Geology and former Vice
Principal of the University of Edinburgh. His research is in the fields of glaciology,
glacial geology and Quaternary science, and has been awarded several international
awards and honorary degrees for his scientific work. He currently has research
projects in Antarctica and Iceland. He has been the UK representative to the
International Union of Geosciences and to the International Union of Quaternary
Sciences. He is a member of the UK Prime Minister‘s Council for Science and
Technology, chairs the Advisory Board of the University of Heidelberg and is
General Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland‘s national academy.
He has been a member of the Councils of the Natural Environment Research Council
and the Royal Society, a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution, the Scottish Science Advisory Committee and the Scottish Higher
Education Funding Council. He was formerly Head of the Department of Geology
and Geophysics and Provost of Science and Engineering in the University of
Edinburgh.
Professor Peter Clarke, FInstP, CPhys, FIET, CEng
Peter Clarke is Professor of Physics at the University of Edinburgh. He has a B.Sc in
Electronics Engineering (Southampton University, 1980) and a D.Phil in Particle
Physics (Oxford 1985). He was a CERN Fellow before being appointed as a lecturer
first at Brunel University in 1987 and then University College London in 1993. He
was promoted to Reader and then Professor in 2001 and was Head of the Particle
Physics Research Group between 2001-04. He moved to the University of Edinburgh
in 2004 to take up the Chair of eScience and later become Director of the National
eScience Centre 2006-09.
David Eyton MA, MIoM3, CEng.
David Eyton is Group Head of Research & Technology at BP, and was appointed in
April 2008. He is accountable for technology strategy and its implementation across
BP and conducting research and development (R&D) in areas of corporate renewal.
In this role, David oversees the R&D capability of the company and also sits on the
UK Energy Technologies Institute and Science¦Business Innovation Boards. During
his career he has held a number of Petroleum Engineering, Commercial and Business
Management positions in the UK, Australia, Trinidad and USA.
Professor James Norton, CDir, CEng, CITP, FIoD, FIET, FBCS, FRSA
Aged fifty-seven, Jim Norton is an independent director and policy adviser. He is an
external member of the Board of the UK Parliament's Office of Science &
Technology (POST) and council member of the Parliamentary IT Committee
(PITCOM). Jim is a Non-Executive Director of F&C Capital & Income Investment
Trust plc, where he chairs the Audit & Management Engagement Committee. He is a
Board Member and Trustee of the Foundation for Information Policy Research
(FIPR), as well as a member of the 'Electronic Communications Expert Advisory
Panel' for the Irish Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg). Jim is a
Vice-President and Trustee of the BCS – Chartered Institute for IT, an External
Examiner for the Institute of Directors, and Chair of the IT Policy Panel for the
Institution of Engineering & Technology. He also chairs the Steering Group for the
Secure Software Development Partnership (SSDP) of the Technology Strategy Board.
Also, you should really look up the word 'commission' or 'commissioned'. When you commission a group, you grant them authority after they request permission to validate the accuracy of a project. The university of East Anglia didn't go head hunting for the people they like -- so there should be no trepidation here about them tainting the independence of the review.
The group wasn't in cahoots with East Anglia, quacker-jack.
Last edited:
I never said anything about the CRU working indenpendently.
Try and follow along.
.....and I'll repeat.
Forgot to mention the other 4 investigations as well and I'm real shocked.
Supose you poured over the emails yourself....where's the fraud? Is it hidden by pixie dust?
Also tell us why no other investigation was needed or demanded by all the governemnts involved in the UN.....which means all of them on the planet.
I'd figure at least one nut out their who thinks they have a case would have tried to bring the science to court......still waiting for that. Actually I think I heard something about an state attorney general trying to muster up something and it may have worked if it didn't keep getting trown out of court for lack of evidence.
Now unless you can start answering some simple questions I'll get back to what the thread title was about before spammers like you came in to derail it.
I know it hurts to see your heros exsposed as frauds and liars but it has to be done old fella.
Cheerio.
No need to get your blood pressure up on this. Go back and read my initial statement and the one(s) made by Baals Tears and maybe you'll see the issue (although I'm not really hopeful).
.....and nothing.
Just what I expected......from the black knight.
YouTube - Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap
