CRU Exonerated
15 April 2010, 09:28 AM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRU Exonerated
No surprise really, the CRU has been cleared of malpractice.
Of course, the release of the raw data may throw up a different to their conclusions. We shall see......
Geezer
Of course, the release of the raw data may throw up a different to their conclusions. We shall see......
Geezer
15 April 2010, 10:08 AM
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hmmm But see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/201...whitewash.html
"... The Panel, we are reminded, was not concerned with "the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct." Rather "it was asked to come to a view on the integrity of the Unit's research and whether as far as could be determined the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data." ... As McIntyre notes, the Panel was announced on 22 March and its report is dated 12 April – three weeks end-to-end. They took no evidence and their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing are the 1000-year reconstructions, which must count as the most controversial and influential pieces of work produced by the unit ...."
I think the term 'white wash' springs to mind ......
Dave
"... The Panel, we are reminded, was not concerned with "the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct." Rather "it was asked to come to a view on the integrity of the Unit's research and whether as far as could be determined the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data." ... As McIntyre notes, the Panel was announced on 22 March and its report is dated 12 April – three weeks end-to-end. They took no evidence and their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing are the 1000-year reconstructions, which must count as the most controversial and influential pieces of work produced by the unit ...."
I think the term 'white wash' springs to mind ......
Dave
15 April 2010, 11:56 AM
#3
I noted the careful wording: "scientific malpractice"
That suggests the data is manipulated; That was never the case. The individial figures were never manipulated.
It was the way the data was statistically selected and rejected to satisfy a premeditated conclusion/objective is was happening. And it was blatent this was done intentionally to meet its aims and was not done in an impartial manner. Where data that did not meet their aim was rejected, and data that did was included. This satisfied in producing any resulting conclusion or final data report that appeared to be in favour of their intended objectives.
That suggests the data is manipulated; That was never the case. The individial figures were never manipulated.
It was the way the data was statistically selected and rejected to satisfy a premeditated conclusion/objective is was happening. And it was blatent this was done intentionally to meet its aims and was not done in an impartial manner. Where data that did not meet their aim was rejected, and data that did was included. This satisfied in producing any resulting conclusion or final data report that appeared to be in favour of their intended objectives.
15 April 2010, 11:58 AM
#4
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were never going to review the data, that's too big a task, but it does seem odd that they can say their integrity is not in doubt. How have they determined this? By asking them....
"Did you mean to deceive anyone?"
"Er, no"
"Well, that's good enough for me then!"
I can't really see how they have determined anything without reviewing the data
. Their conclusions can only be judged against the data and their intentions are known only to them?
Geezer
"Did you mean to deceive anyone?"
"Er, no"
"Well, that's good enough for me then!"
I can't really see how they have determined anything without reviewing the data
. Their conclusions can only be judged against the data and their intentions are known only to them?Geezer
18 April 2010, 05:15 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great column today in the Telegraph .... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...t-go-away.html ...
"... As is reflected in so many political tragedies, from Macbeth to Watergate, it is often not the original dark act itself which leads to nemesis but the later attempts to “trammel up the consequence”. Nothing will do more to reinforce suspicion of the CRU’s conduct than the failure, first by those MPs, and now by the team led by Lord Oxburgh, to address properly the way in which it appears to have abused the principles of true science – a scandal which should be of concern not just to us here in Britain, who paid for it, but across the world ..."
Have a read.
Dave
"... As is reflected in so many political tragedies, from Macbeth to Watergate, it is often not the original dark act itself which leads to nemesis but the later attempts to “trammel up the consequence”. Nothing will do more to reinforce suspicion of the CRU’s conduct than the failure, first by those MPs, and now by the team led by Lord Oxburgh, to address properly the way in which it appears to have abused the principles of true science – a scandal which should be of concern not just to us here in Britain, who paid for it, but across the world ..."
Have a read.
Dave
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post