Lord Monckton...hero of Denialism

[darkbeaver]

Yer story is dripping puddles of oil and the tires are flat, that old bucket of rust you're trying to flog on the unsuspecting public is a big lemon. For christ sake Avro put climate denial out to pasture the old nag's gone lame and it's got the heaves, you need a new horse.

 

[Avro]

Wow, what an epic fail that comeback was.

Is that one of many standard lines from basement scientists like you.

Thing is you'd have actually view what I posted to make a statement defending not really a Lord Monckton.

You and your ilk never do, it's just more of the same crap you always spew....it's the banks...it's the Jews....it's corporatism....it's aliens....it's a cabal of left leaning scientists....blah blah blah blah.:roll:

More to come....

More to ignore....

 

[Tonington]

Individuals, corporations and society as a whole are subject to answer to the courts for fraudulent or misleading deeds, what makes science exempt from this especially if it is intended to impact national policy

Fraud is a matter for the court, no matter where it happens. To beat a dead horse, no inquiries have found evidence of fraud.

To repeat, scientific matters are not settled in court. Courts use scientific expertise to evaluate evidence, but they don't rule on results of study, or the progression of the frontiers of human knowledge. Courts ask the experts for their expertise, and the experts have, year after year, produced scientific inquiries that have strengthened the "case" that it is human activities that are the major contributor to our current climactic changes.

 

[captain morgan]

Fraud is a matter for the court, no matter where it happens. To beat a dead horse, no inquiries have found evidence of fraud.

Based on some of the emails related to Climategate, misuse of funds and insinuations of misconduct relative to the research would merit investigation and potential charges of fraud.

 

[Tonington]

Based on some of the emails related to Climategate, misuse of funds and insinuations of misconduct relative to the research would merit investigation and potential charges of fraud.

Yes, after the release of the stolen emails there were investigations. None of them found evidence of fraud. The only way it could be made to look like fraud was to remove the context, which of course the so-called skeptical bloggers and journalists happilly obliged. The CRU and Jones were cleared of the charges of fraud by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee. The CRU was cleared of the charges of fraud by an Independent Science Assessment panel. The CRU was cleared of fraud by a panel commissioned by the University of East Anglia. Mann was cleared of fraud by a Pennsylvania State University committee.

Guess how many of those bloggers and journalists have retracted their claims? The only one of which I'm aware of is a British journalist, George Monbiot.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes, after the release of the stolen emails there were investigations. None of them found evidence of fraud. The only way it could be made to look like fraud was to remove the context, which of course the so-called skeptical bloggers and journalists happilly obliged. The CRU and Jones were cleared of the charges of fraud by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee. The CRU was cleared of the charges of fraud by an Independent Science Assessment panel. The CRU was cleared of fraud by a panel commissioned by the University of East Anglia. Mann was cleared of fraud by a Pennsylvania State University committee.

Guess how many of those bloggers and journalists have retracted their claims? The only one of which I'm aware of is a British journalist, George Monbiot.

First off, I brought up Climategate as an example, I'm not interested in getting into whether or not that event was fraud or misunderstanding or whatever.

That said, any investigation into these matters would need to involve a non-partisan and apolitical authority... Again, without getting into an argument about the validity of the claim(s), having the Science Assessment Panel is without merit as they are too closely related to the group that are the (alleged) offenders (ie the CRU).

They needed to have an outside group adjudicate the science as well as the police to determine if there were grounds to investigate further.

 

[Tonington]

They needed to have an outside group adjudicate the science as well as the police to determine if there were grounds to investigate further.

That's a ridiculous statement. So, how then would you propose that lawyers and judges are investigated, if they can't be adjudicated by someone who practices law?

 

[captain morgan]

I should have guessed... It's only fair to allow the accused to judge themselves.

Go figure

 

[Tonington]

I should have guessed... It's only fair to allow the accused to judge themselves.

How obtuse...Having a panel of scientists determine whether peer review has been corrupted is not the same thing at all as having Phil Jones determine whether or not Phil Jones was corrupting the peer review process.

 

[captain morgan]

Obtuse? You find objectivity and the criminal justice system obtuse?

Regardless, it had much more to do than peer review.. There were direct allegations of academic fraud for the purpose of securing funding (among other serious allegations). Peer review on that issue is irrelevant.

The details of the investigation efforts that you posted resulted in the accused being allowed to judge themselves. If they had nothing to hide, an independent body (scientific and legal) would not have made any difference, would it?

 

[Avro]

Still clinging to the nothing that climategate is eh Captain?

All thoses cases of fraud that haven't happened, you know, the ones you said occured every month....still waiting for evidence of that grand claim that you slunk away from.

You and Monckton makes fools of yourselves at my pleasure....keep up the good work guys.

 

[Tonington]

Obtuse? You find objectivity and the criminal justice system obtuse?

No...clearly it's your ad hoc models and spinning I find obtuse. I have no problems at all with lawyers being removed from the bar by other lawyers for breach of ethical standards in their profession. I have no problems with a judge adjudicating justice on another judge charged with a crime. I have no problem with scientists evaluating the work of other scientists to see if a process was corrupted.

 

[Avro]

Here's a nice wittle video summing up the vast conspiracy hidden in those email by gods enemy....scientists.

YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails

Now I'm sure you'll claim you suddenly don't have sound, well I'll be happy to flip you a couple of loonies if you can't afford some speakers old fella....the least I could do.

 

[BaalsTears]

Yes, after the release of the stolen emails there were investigations. None of them found evidence of fraud. The only way it could be made to look like fraud was to remove the context, which of course the so-called skeptical bloggers and journalists happilly obliged...

I have heard that those investigations were not independent, but were in fact biased and not impartial because they were conducted by the very institutions that had their reputations on the line. If that is true, the results of the investigations can be dismissed out of hand. So were the investigations conducted by independent tribunals?

 

[Tonington]

I have heard that those investigations were not independent, but were in fact biased and not impartial because they were conducted by the very institutions that had their reputations on the line.

So, produce some evidence for this claim of fact. Start with the first link I linked to, and go through them all.

 

[Avro]

So, produce some evidence for this claim of fact. Start with the first link I linked to, and go through them all.

See, the conspiracy has to get bigger and bigger for it all to hold together.....question now becomes who isn't involved in the cover up?:lol:

It's like watching a cartoon.

 

[Tonington]

See, the conspiracy has to get bigger and bigger for it all to hold together.....question now becomes who isn't involved in the cover up?:lol:

It's like watching a cartoon.

Ren and Stimpy? :lol:

 

[BaalsTears]

So, produce some evidence for this claim of fact. Start with the first link I linked to, and go through them all.

If you noticed I asked a question about independence? I did not make a claim or write a declaratory sentence. My post was very carefully worded.

 

[lone wolf]

If that is true, the results of the investigations can be dismissed out of hand.

This sentence would be declaratory - based on condition - unless you're making up your own definitions again.... ;-)

 

[Tonington]

I have heard that those investigations were not independent, but were in fact biased and not impartial because they were conducted by the very institutions that had their reputations on the line.

So, is it in fact, or not in fact? Did you bother to inquire? I don't much care about baseless assertions. Not sure why you would even bring it up if the veracity is unknown.