{"id":368196,"date":"2010-02-27T00:01:37","date_gmt":"2010-02-27T05:01:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/papundits.wordpress.com\/?p=31794"},"modified":"2010-02-27T00:01:37","modified_gmt":"2010-02-27T05:01:37","slug":"institute-of-physics-damns-the-climategaters%e2%80%99-%e2%80%9cscience%e2%80%9d","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/368196","title":{"rendered":"Institute Of Physics Damns The Climategaters\u2019 \u201cScience\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Andrew Bolt<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Institute of Physics<\/a>, representing 36,000 members, submits a devastating assessment of Climategate<\/a> to the British parliamentary inquiry into the scandal:<\/p>\n

\n

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital\u2026 <\/em><\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges: <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00b7 those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00b7 historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of \u2018proxies\u2019, for example, tree-rings. <\/em><\/p>\n

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/span>Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information. <\/em><\/p>\n

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements. <\/em><\/p>\n

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific \u2018self correction\u2019, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation. <\/em><\/p>\n

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers…<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This submission in effect warns that this recent warming may not be unprecedented, after all, and those that claim it is may have been blinded by bias or simply fiddled their results and suppressed dissent.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll repeat: Climategate reveals the greatest scientific scandal of our lifetime.<\/p>\n

UPDATE<\/strong><\/p>\n

AND TAKE THE NOBEL OFF HIM AND HIS DISCREDITED OUTFIT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Less than three years after receiving a Nobel Prize for terrifying people:<\/p>\n

\n

Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to face an international inquiry <\/a>into the performance of his organisation.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri\u2019s robust response to his critics. If his management is found to be at fault his position could become untenable. <\/em><\/p>\n

Participants in the unprecedented meeting \u2013 held at the annual assembly of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme\u2019s (UNEP) Governing Council in Bali \u2013 were sworn to secrecy over the decision and it is only expected to be announced after its detaled scope and composition have been worked out by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation, the two UN agencies that oversee the IPCC\u2019s work. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt\u2019s Blog<\/a><\/p>\n

Andrew Bolt<\/em><\/a> is a journalist and columnist writing for <\/em>The Herald Sun<\/em><\/a> in Melbourne Victoria Australia.<\/em><\/p>\n

Filed under: Blundering Bureaucrats<\/a>, Climate Alarmists<\/a>, Climate Change<\/a>, Environment<\/a>, Environmental activists<\/a>, Europe<\/a>, Fanatics<\/a>, Fear-mongering<\/a>, Fraud\/Waste<\/a>, Global Warming<\/a>, Great Britain<\/a>, Liberals<\/a>, Lily-Livered Liberals<\/a>, Limp-Wrist Liberals<\/a>, Power Hungry<\/a>, Propaganda<\/a>, Public Opinion<\/a>, U.K.<\/a> Tagged: Andrew Bolt<\/a>, Climate Change Fraud<\/a>, Climate Change Religion<\/a>, Climategate<\/a>, Global Warming Alarmism<\/a>, Global Warming Hype<\/a>, Rajendra Pachauri<\/a>, Tony<\/a>, UK Climatic Research Institute (CRU)<\/a>, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Andrew Bolt The Institute of Physics, representing 36,000 members, submits a devastating assessment of Climategate to the British parliamentary inquiry into the scandal: 2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4200,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-368196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4200"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=368196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/368196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=368196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=368196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=368196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}