http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/damning-new-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries/#more-24853
Damning new investigation into Climategate inquiries
Posted on September 14, 2010 by Anthony Watts
(photo) Climate Research Unit (CRU) building at UEA
Press release
London, 14 September – The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations.
The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.
In particular, the report finds that:
* none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
* insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
* none managed to be objective and comprehensive
* none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
* terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
* none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said:
“The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims.”
“All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place,” Andrew Montford warned.
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotIsn't it about successful propoganda, not about evidence?
“All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place,” Andrew Montford warned.
...[/b]
Originally posted by PsychoPawnIf you don't have the time then how will you know the truth? You then take other peoples word for it, right? It then comes down to who you trust the most or who you agree with the most, right?
I haven't, I have a job. So what? That is irrelevant to what I said.
Originally posted by zeeblebot“Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia.” ???
* none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
* insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
* none managed to be objective and comprehensive
* none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed criti ...[text shortened]... e of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
East Anglia is the ‘mothership’ of this contemptuous fraud that has been perpetrated upon us. It should be no surprise to anyone these bullet points naming biased conduct in East Anglia “inquiries” have found East Anglia followed the exact fraudulent procedures they used while inventing their false reports. Proven false by their own internal emails. (made available Nov. ‘09) Which begs the question: Who had the brilliant idea of allowing the accused to investigate themselves?
Originally posted by whodeyI think I've made my stance quite clear on this forum several times. But I will summarize it for you again: since we need to conserve fossil fuels anyway, we must invest in ways to replace them by investing in green and nuclear power and investing in scientific research to boost the efficiency of engines, solar panels, to make nuclear fusion a reality, etc. And if burning fossil fuels is bad for our climate, getting rid of our dependency on them will solve any climate issues too.
Where do you fall in the climate argument and why?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDid you read the report in the OP?
I think I've made my stance quite clear on this forum several times. But I will summarize it for you again: since we need to conserve fossil fuels anyway, we must invest in ways to replace them by investing in green and nuclear power and investing in scientific research to boost the efficiency of engines, solar panels, to make nuclear fusion a reality, ...[text shortened]... s bad for our climate, getting rid of our dependency on them will solve any climate issues too.
EARTHS ATMOSPHERE
Earth’s atmosphere allows the sun’s heat in but resists its re-radiation back into space. The atmosphere is comprised of nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21%, argon 0.93% and CO2 0.04%. Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapour, up to 4% by volume.
Nitrogen and Oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. Greenhouse gases included in Kyoto Protocol were rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that activated Al Gore, actually has low warming potency. Methane-CH4 (aka natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, contributes only 7% of warming. Nitrous Oxide-N2O, mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19%.
ATMOSPHERIC CO2
Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources. Nature generates about 30 times as much CO2 as does man. Yet the warming alarmists are unconcerned about that 96.8% from natures outpouring. They are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2% caused by humans.
WATER VAPOR
Ignored is yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact: CO2 is a very minor contributor to the “greenhouse” effect when water vapour is taken into consideration. Water vapour is 4.0% of earth’s atmosphere; CO2 is 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere.
All “greenhouse” gases together produce less than 2% of the “greenhouse” effect when water vapour is included in the formulation. In which case anthropogenic CO2 represents less than 0.1% of the greenhouse effect. These facts indicate, if anthropogenic CO2 could be totally eliminated (which it can’t) over 99.9% of the earths “greenhouse” effect gases would still remain.
POLITICS
If it’s known water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, why has the focus been on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapour is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto and Bali, they could hardly vote to do nothing. Instead, they agreed developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. Top of the man-made list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapour, but still representing man’s largest contribution.
Since Kyoto, 1997, there has been an enormous industry created on the back of CO2 and too many scientists, foundations and the like have sprung up which rely entirely on the existence of global warming, now called climate change, for their livelihood.
_______________________________________________________
I WILL CONDENSE THE ABOVE TO MAKE IT SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND:
1) Total CO2 in our entire atmosphere = 0.04 percent
2) Of that .04% only 0.00128 percent of earths atmosphere is man-made (anthropogenic).CO2. While 0.03872 percent of earths atmosphere is naturally occurring and uncontrollable, CO2.
3) Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 is only 0.00128 percent of our atmosphere.
4) If all man-made CO2 was totally removed from earths atmosphere (which cannot be done). That would lower total atmospheric CO2 from 0.04 percent to 0.03872.
5) What will these government plans accomplish if they lower man-made CO2 by their 10% goal? It would lower the existing 0.00128% anthropogenic CO2 to 0.001152%. Total atmospheric CO2 would then drop from 0.04 percent to 0.0388%, at the sacrifice of the world’s economy.
The logical conclusion is: You can spit out your window and have an effect on global warming equal to the change eliminating anthropogenic CO2 would realise.