Climategate: CRU datassa ei vikaa

[Straw Man]

En Tapsa ymmärrä kysymystäsi. Oletko jossakin nähnyt linkitettävän Realclimaten kirjoituksiin siitä, miten luotettavaa tai epäluotettaa Penn Staten arvioijan, Science & Technology Committeen, Lordi Oxburgh'n paneelin tai independent e-mail review -tiimin toiminta on? Paha puhua muiden puolesta, mutta minä ainakin olen linkittänyt vain näiden arvioijien tekstejä (ja niistä kielirajoitteisille tehtyjä suomenkielisiä tiivistelmiä).

Toki puolustus- ja syyttämispuheenvuoroista syntyy hyvää saippuaoopperaa, mutta se on sitten vain ja ainoastaan sitä.

-Tuomas

Jos sinä, Tuomas, viitsisit lukea Climateaudit:in arvioita, niin jopa sinäkin saattaisit ymmärtää asian pihvin ja siihen liittyvät kysymykset.

McIntyre nimittäin käsittelee niitä asioita, joita Oxburghin paneeli ei käsitellyt. ( Esim. Jones 1998 ja Osborn and Briffa 2006.)

(Un)Realclimatea on turha vetää tähän asiaan mukaan, koska (Un)Realclimate sensuroi kaiken kritiikin. Se, että sinä, Tuomas, linkität vain AGW-apostolien (=Realclimate) hyväksymiä kirjoituksia kertoo toki sinusta kaiken, mutta itse asian käsittelystä vain "virallisesti" hyväksytyn kannan. (= "puolustuspuheenvuorot")

Jotta vastaisuudessa ymmärtäisit asiaan liittyviä kysymyksiä, sinun kannattaisi lukea CRU-vuodon esiintuomat sähköpostit. Ilman sitä tietoa sinä et tiedä asiasta mitään.

Hauska yhteensattuma asiaan liittyen :

So we have an extraordinary coincidence - that both the UEA submission to the select comittee and Lord Oxburgh's panel independently came up with almost identical lists of papers to look at, and that they >independently neglected< key papers like Jones 1998 and Osborn and Briffa 2006.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... ponse.html

Laajenna tietämystäsi, Tuomas, ja sitä kautta ymmärrystäsi.

Voit olla huoletta, se ei satu.

[Straw Man]

Lisäys Oxburghin panelin "tutkimuksiin".

Stephen McIntyre lähettää kirjeen Oxburghille :

Dear Dr Oxburgh,
I am writing to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Science Appraisal Panel, which reported on April 14, 2010 on the independent external reappraisal of CRU’s science that had been announced by the University of East Anglia in February 2010.
It has come to my attention from a reliable source that, during one of his interviews with the Science Appraisal Panel, Phil Jones (of CRU) admitted that it was probably impossible to do these [1000-year temperature] reconstructions with any accuracy.
Given that this has been one of the most contentious, if not the most contentious issue, in the disputes about CRU’s science, the failure of the Science Appraisal Panel to record this important information appears to me to be a material omission that, in this case, distorts the research record.
Under the circumstances, I request that you forthwith issue an addendum that clearly reports Jones’ evidence on the probable impossibility of doing the 1000-year reconstructions with any accuracy.
Yours truly,
Stephen McIntyre

Huomioikaa erityisesti panelin nimi "Science Appraisal Panel".

Oxburghin vastaus :

Dear Dr Mcintyre,
Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study.
Yours sincerly,
Ron Oxburgh

Mikä on ollut Science Appraisal Panel:in tarkoitus, kun vastaus on "the science was not the subject of our study"?

Varovainen, joskin hyvin ilmeinen, tulkinta vastauksesta on se, että panelin tarkoituksena oli vain poistaa epäilyn varjo lämpötiladataa tarkoitushakuisesti muokanneiden "tiedemiesten" yltä.

Koko homma on siis edelleenkin levällään ja odottaa oikeaa tutkimusta.

[tuhelin]

Penn State on saanut tutkimukset valmiiksi koskien Michael Mannin mahdollista virkarikettä.
http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10 ... Report.pdf
http://live.psu.edu/story/47378

Raportin johtopäätös:

Conclusion of the Investigatory Committee as to whether research misconduct occurred:

The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.

More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.

The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.

Mielenkiintoisempi tutkimusraportti julkaistaneen nyt keskiviikkona 7.7. kun independent e-mail review saa vihdoin lopullisen raporttinsa valmiiksi:
http://www.cce-review.org/News.php

Mielenkiintoista nähdä loppuviikosta, saako tuon puolueettoman CRU-vuodon tutkimusraportin julkaisu minkäänlaista medianäkyvyyttä.

Aiemmat kaksi East Anglian yliopiston (UEA) asettaman kansainvälisen paneelin raportit ja suomennokset löytyy täältä.

-Tuomas
http://ilmastotieto.wordpress.com/

[tuhelin]

Mielenkiintoisempi tutkimusraportti julkaistaneen nyt keskiviikkona 7.7. kun independent e-mail review saa vihdoin lopullisen raporttinsa valmiiksi

Tuo raportti on nyt saatavilla, http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf. Tämänkään tutkinnan johtopäätökset eivät oikein tue tuota talven hulinaa CRU-vuodon ympärillä.

Tämän puoli vuotta sitten tehdyn ennustuksen myötä toivotan leppoisaa kesää kaikille!

-Tuomas

[BorisW]

Lueskelin hieman Penn State Universityn raporttia ja voin todeta, että ne neljä tärkeintä kysymystä, jotka Mannille esitettiin eivät voikaan tuoda esille niitä puutteita joihin Mann on syyllistynyt.

I. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data? Eihän tämä kysymys kosketa kehotusta osallistua "hide the decline" tapaukseen.
2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4,as suggested by Phil Jones? Ilmeisesti hän ei ole tuhonnut, koska luovutti zipattua aineistoa tutkimuskomitealle. Onko siinä koko aineisto onkin aivan eri juttu, enkä huomannut raportista oliko paneeli verrannut Mannin viestejä Jonesin tai muiden osallistuneiden viesteihin.
3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar? Tämä kysymys ei mielestäni liity koko Climategate jupakkaan
4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities? Koska tieteessä tapahtuu aineiston valikointia ym hieman kyseenalaisia toimi Mannin on ollut helppo kieltää tehneensä mitään vakavasti poikkeavaa.

Muir Russellin tutkintoraportin 160 sivua en ole ehtinyt lukea, mutta ainakin näyttää, että lätkämailakäyrän käyttöä moititaan.

[BorisW]

Uusi IPCC-skandaali jota en ole ehtinyt tarkistaa? Äskettäin saamani viesti kertoo, että IPCC:n AR4 WG1 aurinkoa koskeva kannanotto perustuu vain yhteen asiantuntijaan, nimittäi Judith Leaniin:

Subject: [Climate Sceptics] New global warming scandal: ‘Consensus’ on Sun is by one expert



This is the same Judith Lean who co-authored a recent GRL paper with
David Rind about which Martin Livermore wrote, "The study smacks of
damage limitation, of a desire to find some rational explanation for
the lack of temperature rise over the past seven or more years." (see
Gary's post 24 April). Paul Ashton
===============================================

New Global Warming Scandal: `Consensus' on Sun is by one Expert

John O'Sullivan

June 26, 2010

New global warming data fraud scandal seems to show a faked
`consensus' of the impact of solar forcing on Earth's climate based
on one finding.

A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as
devastating as Climategate.

The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog,
Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal,
"Judithgate."

Roughly translated into English the site reveals that the The IPCC
relied on evidence supplied by just only one Solar Physicist, Judith
Lean, to create their "consensus that solar influence upon the
climate was minimal.

Judithgate Scandal Goes Viral

The story has going viral on climate skeptic websites and is reported
on a leading blog, `Climate Realists' as ,'IPCC "Consensus" on Solar
Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own
Paper.'

New Global Warming Scandal: Consensus on Sun is One Expert
260310banner2

Apparently, objections were raised to the IPCC by the Norwegian
Government as early as the draft version in the preliminary phases of
the IPCC's draft of their Fourth Report of 2007, which won the
organization the Nobel Peace Prize.

A total of six further peer-reviewed papers were dismissed by the
IPCC for inclusion. At least one of the papers, by leading solar
expert Hans Svensmark totally contradicted the IPCC's conclusions
that the Sun was not a key player in climate change.

Norwegian Government Snubbed By `Politicized' IPCC

Citing evidence from the IPCC's Fourth Report (AR4) second draft
comments objections to the creation of a faked consensus among
scientists was raised by scientitic representatives from the
Norwegian Government which spotted the fraud.

Their noted objection reads: "I would encourage the IPCC to
[re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team
of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of
this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which
J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be
correct, is given too much weight."

The IPCC dismissed the objections of the Norwegian government
outright stating that any such changes would be "impractical."

"Scandalous Re-writing" of Climate Data Records

The Czech blog outraged at what it sees as apparent cherry-picking to
fit a pre-determined political view to blame global warming on
man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, fumed, "Judith Lean, along with
Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of
graphs of solar activity."

Backed up by evidence obtained from the Harvard University Library,
it may be proven that satellite measurements between 1986 and 96 do
indicate that Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single
study noted above) "manipulated" their data.

More Woe For Beleagured IPCC Chairman, Pachauri

The article asserts that there was also further deliberate intent
committed by the IPCC to stifle objections raised by other
international climate experts, "People who were in charge of the
satellites and created the original graphs (the world's best
astrophysics: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain
against such manipulation."

The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, had already admitted to
similar such "errors" in the Glaciergate scandal but has repeatedly
refused to resign, as reported in the India Times. The UN has been
conducting it's own internal investigations but has not divulged its
findings to the public.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-global- ... xpert.html


Mikäli tämä on totta, niin IPCC:n aurinkoosuus joutuu hieman kyseenalaiseen valoon.

[juakola]

Osuvaa pilakuvataidetta Joshilta: