Lord Monckton...hero of Denialism
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Now back to the thread topic.....
YouTube - Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
YouTube - Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers
A Tribunal composed of Grand Kleagles of the Ku Klux Klan has issued a Report finding that Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club President Sonny Barger is not a racist.
To which investigation are you referring? None of the CRU investigations were done internally.
Any investigation which has investigators related, affiliated, interested, or sharing a common interest in any way to, or with the subject of the investigation has the appearance of impropriety even if there is no actual impropriety.
AGW may very well be true. But that isn't the point.
AGW may very well be true. But that isn't the point.
I think most intelligent people are aware that to determine whether peer review was corrupted, and whether or not the results from one particular research group were fabricated, requires investigators which will have a thorough knowledge of the peer review system, and or of the field the group published results in.
It's ironic, that you would post an op-ed by Pat Michaels. According to your criteria, he is incapable of coming to a conclusion on this subject in an unbiased fashion.
Maybe you're only interested in optics...you aren't applying your model in a uniform fashion, and you appear more interested in rumor and appearances.
It's ironic, that you would post an op-ed by Pat Michaels. According to your criteria, he is incapable of coming to a conclusion on this subject in an unbiased fashion.
Maybe you're only interested in optics...you aren't applying your model in a uniform fashion, and you appear more interested in rumor and appearances.
1. Don't talk about me. I'm not the issue.
2. Patrick Michaels was not a member of the Tribunal. Thus, there is no impropriety or lack of independence on his part in connection rendering judgment on the alleged Climategate affair.
3. The sole issue is the independence and appearance of impropriety of the Tribunal.
You are when your model doesn't apply across the board.
So then his opinion means precisely squat to this matter. You posted it. Just sayin.
Appearance is not at all the sole issue. As I said, maybe it is for you. Some of us are more interested in truth than appearances.
Of appearances and rumors, yes I already said I'm not interested in that stuff. If anyone can show evidence of bias from the reports, I'll be happy to read it. But I don't care about appearances or rumors.
No, that's a published report. Is there any evidence in that report of bias by the panel members, yes or no? Pretty simple question.
That depends... Did the CRU commission a study by those same panel members to peer review themselves and look for their own bias?
1. I haven't proposed any model. I am your fellow member of cc. That makes us part of a community of discussion. Your fellow members are never the subject of discussion.
2. "Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."
No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."
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
3. In order for the message to be heard, the messenger must be beyond criticism. The appearance of the lack of independence and impartiality creates the impression of bias. That is the only issue I have raised. I have not questioned AGW.
When there is a potential conflict of interest there is always the appearance of impropriety. Always. The issue of actual conflict of interest or bias does not need to be reached whenever there is the mere appearance of impropriety.
Edit: Hey guys, I'm going out to knock back some Mexican beer. See you later.