jump to navigation

Who needs a committee report to spot rank deception? April 13, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , ,

Who needs a committee report to spot rank deception?

Joanne Nova

By Joanne Nova
ABC, April 12, 2010

The issue of the ClimateGate emails leaked or hacked from the East Anglia CRU is not that complicated. The emails are damning because anyone who reads them understands that they show petty, unprofessional, and probably criminal behaviour. We know the guys who wrote them are not people we’d want to buy cars from. They are hiding information. We don’t need a committee to state the obvious.

The emails show some of the leading players in climate science talking about tricks to “hide declines”, they boast about manipulating the peer review process, and “getting” rid of papers they didn’t like from the IPCC reports. It’s clear the data wasn’t going the way they hoped, yet they screwed the results every way they could to milk the “right” conclusion. Above all else, they feared freedom of information requests, and did everything they could to avoid providing their data. ClimateGate shows these people were not practising science, but advocacy and have been doing it for decades.

The House of Commons committee was surely supposed to be protecting the citizens of the UK from being deceived and defrauded, so what did they say when faced with obvious malpractice? Did they draw their swords and declare that honest taxpayers deserve better? Not at all. They whitewashed it.

“On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.”

It’s the nice way of saying that Phil Jones really did hide the data, but everyone else in climate science fails the basic tenets of science too (so that’s alright then). Sure. Those practices need to “change”, not now, not tomorrow, but at some indeterminate time in the future. No rush boys. Yes, Jones should have his job back.

This is simple playground politics, not rocket science. Even preschoolers can come up with the Phil Jones defence: “But Mum. Everyone else does it.” The committee tries to defend Jones, and inadvertently damns the whole field of climate “science”.

Read the rest here



1. Oliver K. Manuel - April 13, 2010

Thank you, Joanne, for speaking the truth.

At the base of the Climategate iceberg are decades of deceit and data manipulation by scientists following the trail of public research funds poured out by bureaucrats at NASA, EPA, DOE, NOAA, etc. and supervised by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Climategate revealed an unholy, international link of scoundrels at NAS with other national academies of science, world leaders and politicians like Al Gore, the UN’s IPCC, major research journals (Nature and Science), and the world leading news organizations.

We do not need a committee to identify rank deception nor simple truths like neutron repulsion as the primary source of solar energy, solar neutrinos and solar wind Hydrogen pouring from the solar surface.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: