When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.

[DiscoBiscuit]

This is just another example of denial style. Even though each of these inquiries has been held up as evidence of nefarious activity, the conclusions are consistently the opposite.

These inquiries are repeatedly used to confuse those that are duped with a headline and a conclusion.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review

Welcome to the website of the independent Climate Change Email Review.

THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT CLIMATE CHANGE REVIEW CAN BE DOWNLOADED HERE

Transcript of Sir Muir Rrussell's opening remarks
The independent Review is being led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE. It will investigate key allegations arising from the series of hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit. Full details of its terms of reference and scope can be found here.

The University of East Anglia (UEA) announced the Independent Review on 3 December 2009.
Sir Muir and the Review team held a press briefing at the Science Media Centre in London on 11 February 2010.
You can download a voice recording of the briefing here (mp3 format -approx 30MB) .
An audio recording of the press conference given by Sir Muir Russell and other members will be added as soon as it available.

http://www.cce-review.org/


(Pages 11, 12 and 13 deal with the findings.)

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

This is just another example of denial style. Even though each of these inquiries has been held up as evidence of nefarious activity, the conclusions are consistently the opposite.

These inquiries are repeatedly used to confuse those that are duped with a headline and a conclusion.

Indeed...
the theft, distribution, and intentional mischaracterization of the emails in an attempt to demonize certain scientists would fall under the 'suppression of knowledge' category for sure.


Thanks for posting the PDF.

 

[dagnabit]

Climategate Inquiry Chairman Failed to Check the Science
Disbelief as chief of 'independent' inquiry into the scandal of lost or destroyed global
warming data admits he "didn't investigate the science."
The 'Climate Audit' website publishes a startling written admission from Lord
Oxburgh, head of the British investigation into the Climategate scandal that his
official inquiry did not check any of the science.
Independent climate data analyst Steve McIntyre, owner of the popular blog,
disclosed the extraordinary revelations on July 1, 2010. The Climategate email leak
occurred on November 19, 2010. McIntyre's Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests
are widely acknowledged to have precipitated the unlawful refusal by University of
East Anglia scientists to disclose key climate data. It is believed Professor Phil Jones
of the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) withheld such data over a three-year
period.
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) handling the FOIA breach
concluded Jones could not be prosecuted as the complaint against him was made
just outside the six-month statute of limitations, as reported in the Norwich Evening
News (January 28, 2010)
Similar such climate data fraud investigations are currently ongoing in the United
States.
Damning Admission Made after Recent Request
Lord Oxburgh’s inquiry team found that climate scientists at the CRU were poor
statisticians, data handlers and archivists who cherry-picked their data.
Recommendations included that in future expert mathematical expertise be brought
in to help climatologists. However, none of the science itself was evaluated despite
this requirement being an explicit and key part of the original remit set by the
University of East Anglia (UEA), as shown on its website (February 11, 2010).
In plain terms the University of East Anglia (UEA) had announced that the inquiry’s
task was to conduct an “independent external reappraisal of the science.”
However, in his letter to McIntyre Lord Oxburgh admitted that the “science was not
the subject of our study.” This was in stark contrast with what was specified. The
university’s own declaration continues, “Colleagues in CRU have strenuously
defended their conduct and the published work and we believe it is in the interests of
all concerned that there should be an additional assessment considering the science
itself.”
McIntyre provides several authenticated references whereby prominent figures
connected to the investigation acknowledge that the science would be the subject of
the inquiry. The Canadian statistician even provides a link to the university’s official
statement made to the British Parliament in which UEA again conceded what was
required was “an external reappraisal of the science itself.”
Thousand Years of Temperature Records Destroyed
McIntyre explains that he was prompted to write to the Inquiry chairman after, “I
heard from a reliable source that, during the Oxburgh interviews, Phil Jones admitted
that it was probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with
any accuracy.”
In effect, Jones had admitted to the panel that the original data was irrecoverably lost
or destroyed. However, the inquiry determined that it would not address this shocking
failure, which McIntyre adjudged was a “hugely important admission relative to this
debate.”
The Oxburgh Science Appraisal Panel “inquiry” inexcusably declined to report this
admission even though the University of East Anglia had announced that the inquiry
shall specifically “re-appraise CRU’s science.”
Inquiry Also Failed to Keep Records
Climate skeptics are angered at another allegedly scurrilous failure by the Oxburgh
investigation; the committee kept no records of any interviews or notes from their
proceedings.
Climate Audit reveals that when questioned about the laxity of his investigations Lord
Oxburgh stated that his terms of reference were “verbal." McIntyre pondered, “Who
ever heard of “verbal” terms of reference?”
McIntyre further bemoans the inquiry's apparent secrecy, “since Oxburgh flouted the
Parliamentary Committee recommendation that the inquiries conduct their business
in the open, in which they stressed the importance of openness in achieving
acceptance of the inquiry results.”
The article concludes with McIntyre lamenting, “Maybe the Commons Science and
Technology Committee can re-convene and find out what the hell was going on with
the Oxburgh “inquiry.”
References:
Bale, D. 'New twist in UEA climate change row.' Norwich Evening News (January 28,
2010), accessed online: July 01, 2010.
McIntyre, S. ‘Oxburgh and the Jones Admission,’( July 01, 2010), Climate Audit.com,
accessed: July 1, 2010.
University of East Anglia,’ New scientific assessment of climatic research
publications announced,’ www.uea.ac.uk, (February 11, 2010), accessed: July 01,
2010.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/CLIMATECHAIRMANADMITSFAILURETOCHECKTHESCIENCE.pdf


Independent climate data analyst Steve McIntyre, owner of the popular blog, disclosed the extraordinary revelations on July 1, 2010. The Climategate email leak occurred on November 19, 2010. McIntyre's Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests are widely acknowledged to have precipitated the unlawful refusal by University of East Anglia scientists to disclose key climate data. It is believed Professor Phil Jones of the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) withheld such data over a three-year period.

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) handling the FOIA breach concluded Jones could not be prosecuted as the complaint against him was made just outside the six-month statute of limitations, as reported in the Norwich Evening News (January 28, 2010)


isn't defrauding a foia request in order to try and suppress information enabling "denialisim"?

 

[dagnabit]

Indeed...
the theft, distribution, and intentional mischaracterization of the emails in an attempt to demonize certain scientists would fall under the 'suppression of knowledge' category for sure.


Thanks for posting the PDF.

your"theft"is a leak

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Lest our focus narrow to dwell on a taboo topic...
This is a good on topic article:

Last year, on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, Darwin's stock soared higher than Apple's. It's 2010—time for a market adjustment.

The philosopher Daniel Dennett once called the theory of evolution by natural selection "the single best idea anyone has ever had." I'm inclined to agree. But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people. I don't mean intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars.

Take, for example, the philosopher Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University and the cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of the University of Arizona in Tucson. In What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010), these self-described atheists argue that the theory of natural selection is "fatally flawed." Their book, which I reviewed for The Philadelphia Inquirer, is, well, fatally flawed. For example, they air familiar debates over how large a role contingency plays in evolution; whether natural selection operates primarily at the level of genes; why certain clusters of genes persist unchanged for eons. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini wrap up the discussion of each debate with the same kicker: natural selection must be wrong.

But saying debates over contingency, levels of selection and gene conservation disprove evolutionary theory is like saying debates over the formation of Saturn's rings disprove heliocentrism. If you're going to shoot the king, the old saying goes, you had better kill him. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini don't even wound Darwin. What Darwin Got Wrong nonetheless serves as a useful reminder of more coherent complaints about natural selection.

I lump Darwin's secular critics into two camps: Some, such as the left-leaning biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (who are cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini), fear the political implications of Darwinian theory. If we accept evolutionary explanations of human nature, they suggest, we may come to believe that many insidious modern "-isms"—unbridled capitalism, racism, sexism and militarism—were highly probable outcomes of evolution and thus not easily subject to change. Given how genetic theories have been employed in the past, these concerns have merit.

Other critics object to Darwinism for precisely the opposite reason. They fear that evolutionary theory, even when buttressed by modern genetics and molecular biology, does not make reality probable enough. Reality seems too precarious, too much a product of blind luck. No one has worked harder to solve the improbability problem than the biologist Richard Dawkins. Ironically, Dawkins has also revealed how deep and possibly intractable the problem is.

In Climbing Mount Improbable (W. W. Norton, 1997) Dawkins emphasizes that the vast majority of variants of a given species fail to propagate; there are many more ways to be a loser in the game of life than to be a success. Surely that is true of life as a whole. Of all the imaginable possible histories of life, what is the likelihood that it would persist for billions of years, long enough to produce toads, baboons and Glenn Beck?

Dawkins also notes that "nature, unlike humans with brains, has no foresight." Each individual organism pursues its short-term interests regardless of the long-term consequences for life as a whole or even for other members of the species. Given this fact, it is all too easy to imagine scenarios in which one species—a bacterium or virus, perhaps—runs amok and destroys all life on Earth.

If our past was improbable, our future might be as well. Recognizing this implication of evolutionary theory, some scientists have proposed alternative mechanisms to make life more robust. For example, biochemists such as Ilya Prigogine and Stuart Kauffman (cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini) have postulated "self-organization" forces that made the origin of life and its subsequent history highly probable.

Other theorists have proposed that natural selection may favor not just genes or individuals but populations, species, even entire ecosystems. The most extreme version of this group-selection concept is Gaia theory, which holds that all of life somehow conspires to ensure its continued survival. Self-organization and Gaia are flawed theories that have won few adherents, but that doesn't mean that the problem they address doesn't exist.

Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper (yes, cited by F and P-P) called evolution via natural selection "almost a tautology" and "not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back. But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin's theory dissatisfying. "One ought to look for alternatives!" Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.

Is it possible that some future genius will discover an alternative that supplants Darwinism as our framework for understanding life? Will we ever look back on Darwin as brilliant but wrong?

Betcha didn't realize science was so competitive that Dawkins is trying to outsmart Darwin...

But that is how the scientific community works...

Kudos go to the scientists who comes up with the most accurate and most provable theories, especially so if you can disprove conventional thought in the process...

Peer pressure in the scientific community is pressure to prove your unconventional hypothesis, not pressure to believe the status quo... Science would never advance if scientists felt pressures to 'agree with the crowd'... Good scientists are natural born skeptics and Skepticism is integral to science.

“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The Climategate email leak
occurred on November 19, 2010.

lmao


Futureleak FTW




Four independent investigations have exonerated the climategate scientists.
Please stop spamming non-news.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

isn't defrauding a foia request in order to try and suppress information enabling "denialisim"?

MOTS...."try and suppress information" is unfounded, at least according to 4 independent inquiries.

A staff of 12 received hundreds of foia requests, only to realize many of these requests have already been made public.

Check out the review, it's probably addressed in 1.3.

 

[dagnabit]

lmao


Futureleak FTW

lmao
typo attack for the weak(ftw)

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

lmao
typo attack for the weak(ftw)

typo attack for comic relief.

but,
I did not fail to address the substance(lessness) of your post as well.
No weak sauce from me. I stay well informed.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

lmao
typo attack for the weak(ftw)

Why would expect their tactics (under the guise of humor) to be any different then their 'science'?...lol

 

[dagnabit]

MOTS...."try and suppress information" is unfounded, at least according to 4 independent inquiries.

A staff of 12 received hundreds of foia requests, only to realize many of these requests have already been made public.

Check out the review, it's probably addressed in 1.3.

MOTS?

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) handling the FOIA breach concluded Jones could not be prosecuted as the complaint against him was made just outside the six-month statute of limitations

i guess got away with is innocent....

GO 32!!!! The Juice is loose!!!!!

to obscure?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

A "leak" is an internal theft.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

lmao


Futureleak FTW




Four independent investigations have exonerated the climategate scientists.
Please stop spamming non-news.

I googled that misstatement and got over 96,000 hits. Tomorrow it'll be a million.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

MOTS?


i guess got away with is innocent....

GO 32!!!! The Juice is loose!!!!!

to obscure?

Absolutely not... Did wrong without getting in trouble does not equal innocent...


Acted honestly and produced reliable research = innocent.

LONDON — An independent report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world's leading climate research centers on Wednesday largely vindicated the scientists involved, saying they acted honestly and that their research was reliable.

nothing remotely OJ about the situation.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

MOTS?


i guess got away with is innocent....

GO 32!!!! The Juice is loose!!!!!

to obscure?

Read the report, you'll have a hard time finding the context you want when it doesn't appear.

Look at the climaterealists.com (.com, lol...it's commercial, for profit, sells advertising) "headlines". Every article attempts to debunk AGW science.

I don't have to read somebody else's context to get the correct drift. I can read the actual report instead.

 

[SilverSage]

post removed - sorry, guess it wasn't that funny

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Example of how Poorly the media understands and presents scientific theories.

Example of how Poorly the media understands and presents scientific theories.

Getting your science from the media is often more detrimental to understanding than outright denialism.

Science fares poorly in the media. Most news outlets devote little attention to scientific topics, and if they do have a website with a science section, it is likely to be filled with technology and medical reporting, rather than scientific discoveries. When scientific topics are reported, they are consistently misunderstood and spiced-up with such sensationalism that the original significance is contorted beyond all recognition.

Such misreporting has happened again--this time involving Charles Darwin and evolution.

A recent paper in the journal Biology Letters, "Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land," by Sarda Sahney, Michael Benton, and Paul Ferry, has caused quite a stir.

The normally-staid BBC wrote of this paper,

Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution.
A Huffington Post piece repeated much of the original BBC article, but felt the need to shout its headline in capital letters:

Darwin May Have Been WRONG, New Study Argues.
AOL News added:

Was Darwin Wrong? An Alternative Theory Emerges
With such sensationalist headlines, readers might get the impression that this new study has single-handedly overthrown one of the best-documented scientific theories in history. Creationists will no doubt pass out copies of these articles at school board meetings as final proof against evolution, just as the Discovery Institute trumpeted an inflammatory New Scientist cover article ("Darwin was Wrong") to the Texas School Board during one of its 2009 meetings. Those who attack evolution will be heartened by these articles and believe that a challenge to evolution has finally been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The reality is, of course, quite different.

These reporters really should have 1) talked to the authors, 2) read the Biology Letters paper, and 3) familiarized themselves with what Darwin wrote. When I talked to lead author Sarda Sahney, of the University of Bristol, she told me unequivocally:

We are not in any way suggesting Darwin was wrong.
Reporters could have learned this from the Biology Letters paper itself. This paper discusses the role of the "expansion and contraction of occupied ecospace" in animal diversity, arguing that on the large scale, ecospace should be considered a prime factor. A press release for the paper noted that when examining large-scale changes in biodiversity, the data suggest:

Animals diversified by expanding into empty ecological roles rather than by direct competition with each other.
This paper does not argue that Darwin's conception of small-scale competition within species is incorrect. It does not argue that new species arising out of accumulating changes is a flawed concept. It does not argue Darwin was wrong.

Mass extinctions in Earth's past have provided opportunities for the large-scale, dramatic ecospace expansions discussed in this paper. But we can also understand this idea with an analogy to a more familiar topic: Darwin's famous Galápagos finches. These birds occupy small, parched islands, on which perennial drought severely limits vegetation. This creates a situation of scarcity in which even small differences in beaks may confer significant advantages. As the pioneering work of Peter and Rosemary Grant shows, competition on a month-by-month, year-by-year scale shapes the evolution of these birds even today.

Now imagine that a new volcanic island erupts in the Galápagos chain. Suddenly an expanse of new, un-colonized land is available; new food sources will grow there. How will this new land affect finch diversification? That's the kind of question being addressed here.

This Biology Letters paper explores expansions and contractions of ecospace--not questions about whether evolution is wrong. This paper suggests a refinement of the details of how evolution happens. Refinements are part of the process of science, and should not be mistaken for attacks.

Those who do attack evolution--from young earth creationists at Answers in Genesis to intelligent design creationists at the Discovery Institute--do so for reasons outside of science. Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum in Kentucky, tries to link evolution with abortion, racism, and genocide. The Discovery Institute opposes evolution as part of their broader culture war on "materialism." By defeating evolution, they hope (in the DI's words) to undo the "destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" of materialist philosophy. Clearly, these motivations are not about science.

Some did get this story right. Michael Reilly at Discovery News refrained from hyperbole and reported this article as perhaps "one facet of natural selection that [Darwin] didn't immediately foresee." Jerry Coyne, a professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, wrote an informative critique of the Biology Letters paper and concluded:

It's bizarre to see every modern discovery through a lens of either supporting or refuting [Darwin's] ideas. If we did that, every paper in genetics could be sold to science journalists as showing that Darwin was wrong about inheritance!
News outlets need to take greater responsibility for the way they report science stories. Once misguided, sensationalist headlines such as these start to spread, this poisonous misinformation--despite all the hard work and research of scientists--becomes a tool for those who reject science.

 

[pearlemae]

Good read there are way to many deniers out there, one must be aware.

 

[dagnabit]

peril???

Oxford English Dictionary


peril
(perils plural )
1 n-var Perils are great dangers.
FORMAL usu with supp
...the perils of the sea..., We are in the gravest peril.
2 n-plural The perils of a particular activity or course of action are the dangers or problems it may involve.
with poss
...the perils of starring in a television commercial.
3 If you say that someone does something at their peril, you are warning them that they will probably suffer as a result of doing it.
♦ at one's peril phrase PHR after v
Anyone who breaks the law does so at their peril.

hope this helps

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Nope... your post was of no help at all... other than to highlight your confusion.
Did you not get that the "wtf?" clown emote was part of my post, you incompletely quoted?

peril???

Not "peril?" as what is the definition of peril... I have reference books for that sort of simple answer, had I not already known the definition.

"peril?" an in "what fucking peril? lmao... peril... pffft... I challenge you to present this trumped up 'peril'."

and ultimately, my challenge to identify this alleged peril was met with dumb silence, and silly sarcasm.