It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shhh. . ."Inquiry Finds No Distortion of Climate Data"

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Yup, that is right. NO DISTORTIONS. . .


A second inquiry has cleared climate researchers at the University of East Anglia of allegations that they distorted the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming. “There was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda,” an independent panel of scientists said in a report submitted to the university on Monday. The investigations began after the unauthorized release last November of hundreds of private e-mail messages exchanged by scientists in the United States and the British university’s Climatic Research Unit. Last month, a British parliamentary committee cleared the research unit of manipulating the evidence.
Link.

Not a surprise, the vigor of the assault on the scientific research into climate change obviously at the time jumped the gun. The calls of PROOF that the science had been doctored were all made before the facts came out and mostly just cherry-picked information to make the science 'look' bad.

Well, I guess it is back to the industry standard dismissal of the issue. That should be fun




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
There should definitly be a independant investigation in this CORRUPTION charge, in case the people investigating are also CORRUPT.
Jeez, you think they would get this stuff.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
corporatists will not believe this anyhow...

btw, March...hottest march recorded...lets see.jan was hottest january, march was hottest march...ya, nothing happening here...

down with industrial regulations...dey took urr jerbs.

How many stooges still believe the denier corporate sponsored movement anyhow..and I wonder if they breed.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
The calls of PROOF that the science had been doctored were all made before the facts came out and mostly just cherry-picked information to make the science 'look' bad.


Funny how you use the words cherry-picked, because that's exactly what both you and the IPCC are doing. While the scientists weren't found at fault (because they warned about uncertainties), the IPCC still chose to misinterpret the data anyway.



The panel was not asked to consider whether the unit’s findings were correct but to judge whether the scientists had conducted their research in an honest and robust manner. The panel said it was “regrettable” that the IPCC, in its advice to governments on climate change, had failed to reflect uncertainties that had been clearly stated in the unit’s reports.

*snip*

The panel, whose members were appointed by the university on the recommendation of the Royal Society, has been accused of lacking independence.

Lord Oxburgh, the panel’s chairman, has links to low-carbon energy companies that stand to profit from efforts to cut greenhouse gases.

He is chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables and president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association.


Climate scientists at East Anglia University cleared by inquiry


Water it down, make it appear to be an innocent mistake... nothing to see.
No conflict of interest there...



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by lernmore
 


There was a three pronged inquiry into this issue. Your link is in reference to #1 which directly looks at the scientists.

My post was in reference to #2 which looked at the data, another issue all together.

Indecently in both cases the scientists AND the data have been cleared.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Perhaps you can point out, more specifically, where the "data" has been cleared, because that article merely links to the exact report I was referring to.

...the same "panel" chaired by Lord Oxburgh.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
shhhhhhh...Don't mention algore in Global Warming thread because it is "Off Topic"? Are you serious?

More people know algore as the "Global Warming guy" than they know him for being a Vice President.


Algore is just as responsible for perpetrating the myth of Global Warming as the fraudulent scientists are.

A Global Warming post is nothing without someone bringing up algore.

Are the "Warmers" now ashamed of algore?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
shhhhhhh...Don't mention algore in Global Warming thread because it is "Off Topic"? Are you serious?

More people know algore as the "Global Warming guy" than they know him for being a Vice President.


Algore is just as responsible for perpetrating the myth of Global Warming as the fraudulent scientists are.

A Global Warming post is nothing without someone bringing up algore.

Are the "Warmers" now ashamed of algore?

The global warming theory wasn't created by Al Gore, neither is he the authority on it, you just want to put a nice little corporate face on it so you can attack it.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
The global warming theory wasn't created by Al Gore, neither is he the authority on it, you just want to put a nice little corporate face on it so you can attack it.


A guy that won an Oscar, and a Nobel Peace Prize perpetrating the myth of Global Warming has no authority on the subject? Who are you kidding?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by hippomchippo
The global warming theory wasn't created by Al Gore, neither is he the authority on it, you just want to put a nice little corporate face on it so you can attack it.


A guy that won an Oscar, and a Nobel Peace Prize perpetrating the myth of Global Warming has no authority on the subject? Who are you kidding?

Nobody, Al Gore isn't a scientist, he may be able to quote scientists, but that doesn't make him one.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Nobody, Al Gore isn't a scientist, he may be able to quote scientists, but that doesn't make him one.


www.msnbc.msn.com...


"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."


Someone obviously thought he was an authority.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Nobody, Al Gore isn't a scientist, he may be able to quote scientists, but that doesn't make him one.


www.msnbc.msn.com...


"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."


Someone obviously thought he was an authority.


No, they thought he explained it well in laymans terms.
And that's hardly part of the discussion, as this is about SCIENTISTS commiting fraud.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo
No, they thought he explained it well in laymans terms.
And that's hardly part of the discussion, as this is about SCIENTISTS commiting fraud.


I believe the fraudulent scientists were under political pressure to distort, manipulate and delete data. This is where algore comes in. Remember, algore is not just the "global warming guy", he was also, at one time, the Vice-President of the United States, and also a former US Senator.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Carseller4]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
People who deny that mankind can have an impact on the climate just baffle me, the best I can say is that they are in serious denial. We know that the activities of man can affect the climate, it’s a proven fact. We similarly know that the activities of man can affect the environment:

CO2 PPM is increasing… Fact…
O2 PPM is Decreasing… Fact…
PH levels of the oceans are increasingly acidic… Fact…

These are all effect of man on the planet, specifically due to the burning of fossil fuels. Yet some seem to be in denial about the effects of man on the Climate due to their infatuation with motor vehicles.


For any who believe that man cannot alter the weather:

China’s Three Gorges Dam is famed for its size — and its reservoir may be large enough to change regional weather patterns. The large body of water has altered temperatures, wind patterns and rainfall rates in both the local Three Gorges Dam region and in the upstream Sichuan Basin, a new study reports — changes that could affect the dam’s ultimate ability to control floods.
At 663 kilometers long and with a capacity of nearly 40 billion cubic meters of water, the Three Gorges Dam’s reservoir is one of the largest in the world (see Geotimes, August 2006). In June 2003, officials raised the reservoir’s water level from 66 to 135 meters — roughly three-fourths of the full depth (175 meters) that it will reach once the project is completed in 2009.
That volume of water has a significant effect on the climate, scientists say, creating a potential evaporating surface that can cool the lower atmosphere and thereby alter both wind and precipitation patterns. Lowering temperatures over the lake means that the air will not rise through the atmospheric column, and without that convection, wind also decreases, says Norman Miller, a climatologist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Although the added moisture would suggest a potential increase in rainfall over the reservoir, the sinking air in the atmospheric column actually pushes the cloudy, moist air over the reservoir away, diverting it from the Three Gorges Dam region, Miller says.

[snip]

The team found that while the average rainfall over the immediate dam area in Yichang had decreased since the reservoir was filled in 2003, it was raining more elsewhere, particularly in the Sichuan Basin, a region ringed by the Daba and Qinling mountain ranges several hundred kilometers to the northwest. In that region, precipitation showed an increase of 1 millimeter per month during the autumn rainy seasons of 2003 and 2005, compared with pre-2003 seasons — a change that is very likely due to the Three Gorges Dam’s construction, Wu says. Daytime temperatures also decreased by about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the same region.
The data suggest that the reservoir is having a regional, rather than local, effect on climate, the team says. This effect is likely to increase once the dam is fully filled, the team reported in the July 7 Geophysical Research Letters.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
reply to post by Animal
 


Perhaps you can point out, more specifically, where the "data" has been cleared, because that article merely links to the exact report I was referring to.

...the same "panel" chaired by Lord Oxburgh.


While it may take you to what you posted it also has a link to the report on the data itself. This is the link. If you would like to get it through the article i posted you simply click on the highlighted words "the report" found within the article.


also to clarify what you posted makes it clear that the investigation HAD nothing to do with the sound nature of the data in question when it said:


Climate scientists at the centre of the row over stolen e-mails acted with integrity and made no attempt to manipulate their research on global temperatures, an external inquiry has found.



The panel was not asked to consider whether the unit’s findings were correct but to judge whether the scientists had conducted their research in an honest and robust manner.


The link to the article you posted.

From the report in question:


We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely
that we would have detected it.
Rather we found a small group of dedicated if
slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures
were rather informal.
link

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Animal]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
Yup, that is right. NO DISTORTIONS. . .
.......................
Well, I guess it is back to the industry standard dismissal of the issue. That should be fun


Ohh wow... yeah right...the pople who have been PUSHING, and PUSHING, and DEMANDING, and DEMANDING the implementation of a "ONe World Government To "Combat Climate Change", and implement more DRACONIAN laws are going to admit that they were distorting the facts, hiding data, PUBLISHING FALSE INFORMATION etc just to push for the One World GREEN Socialist Government..... Riiiight


You are not going to change the facts, sorry.... We even had some of the perpetrators from the IPCC ADMIT THEY HAVE USED FALSE DATA, and the scientist who was told to publish this data CAME FORWARD AND ADMITTED THAT THEY KNEW IT WAS FALSE INFORMATION EVEN BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED but since they thought IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF ALL that it wold vindicate them....

And of course, in order to once again pull a blind over people they made up anothe FALSE investigation trying to clean up the mess they created and trying to get people once more into the "FOLD" that is the lies of AGW.... tsk, tsk....you should be embarrased and ashamed to actually fall for these lies AGAIN....


And BTW, stop hiding behind the LIES, and PROPAGANDA that "those who disagree are oil kooks"... It just shows the level of intelligence of the people making such claims....


[edit on 16-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
People who deny that mankind can have an impact on the climate just baffle me, the best I can say is that they are in serious denial.


Not to be simplistic, but what caused the great ice age, and what caused the warm up that ended it? I can tell who didn't cause it......man. We don't control the Earth, the Earth controls us. Whoever thinks man can affect the Earth's climate is a megalomaniac, and egocentric...all at the same time.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
reply to post by Animal
 


Perhaps you can point out, more specifically, where the "data" has been cleared, because that article merely links to the exact report I was referring to.

...the same "panel" chaired by Lord Oxburgh.


Oh I see, you are looking for someone to say the research is FACT - not that it was not MANIPULATED.

Well, this is about the recent charge that Climate Scientists have been manipulating data - and this study has found the data to be free from such bias.

I know - I know, it must be a huge disappointment that the 'nail in the coffin' of climate science turned out to be made of frozen chocolate pudding - but c'est la vie.

Also I notice you continue to subtly dismiss the study through the use of devices such as panel in quotations and a vague reference to the Chairmanship of Lord Oxburgh, care to elaborate? In all honesty this is only a request for information as a curious person, not to call you out.

Cheers.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join