The Forum > Article Comments > East Anglia Climate Science Exonerated > Comments
East Anglia Climate Science Exonerated : Comments
By Geoff Davies, published 21/4/2010Accusations of fraud or scientific misconduct have been widespread. The committee considered that if there had been misconduct they would very likely have found it.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
and Mr Rudd's comment about climate change being the biggest moral challenge of the century has also been exonerated? No doubt he will remember this again when Mr Obama visits (if he has not got anything more important to do like last time he was scheduled to come).
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 3:11:27 PM
| |
Your results are only as good as your data. Phil Jones's main mistake was taking the data on trust because he WANTED to, instead of double-checking it for precisely that reason.
So how good IS the global surface temperature data? Apart from the disappearance of 80% of the stations, the urban heat island effect and all those minus signs in the wrong places? http://tinyurl.com/y5a66y2 Gee, maybe Canada and Finland didn't have a balmy tropical winter after all... Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 3:42:44 PM
| |
Ahhh, I see Jon J, that epitome of science FUD ... Anthony Watts' (ex-weatherman extraordinaire) very own blogsite - way to go maaate :)
Posted by qanda, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 4:34:26 PM
| |
phoenix94, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 12:17:37 PM
Good onya Mate stick it right into them . I doubt a conversion is likely , they are fanatics , like Religious Monks . Just imagine trying to convince a Monk that Jesus was actually Karl Sandilands uncle in drag. Posted by Garum Masala, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 5:03:12 PM
| |
Loudmouth
relevance? Hasbeen Who was that aimed at? Qanda Some times I hope Mrs Brown (Monty Python galaxy song fame)found some out there hey. ;-) Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 5:29:55 PM
| |
"....although their earlier methods might have exaggerated some effects in the so-called “hockey stick” graph (the subject of heated debate) which depicts temperatures over the past thousand years based on tree-ring data."
The scary thing about the Hockey Stick graph is that Mann only used selected tree ring data which suited his intended outcome. Using ALL the tree ring data we get an entirely different graph. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/ Secondly, basic Science tells us that tree ring growth is related to more than just temperature. e.g. rainfall etc so can be wildly out in years of low rainfall. Surely, any thinking person would see that AGW is deeply flawed? Not if you are ideologically committed to the cause. Logic, then makes no headway. Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 21 April 2010 9:19:23 PM
|