Ahh...finally the long awaited "independent" investigation into Climategate, came to it's conclusion. As expected even without seeking the aid of Paul the Octopus, we can more or less predict the outcome.
But before that, here's a quick recap,on Who's Who in the Climategate plot; in case you're interested.
(FB reader's click HERE)
And here's the conclusion of the "Independent" Investigation into Climategate. Take a listen to this snippet;
FB readers may excess the video by clicking HERE . Or you can read it HERE in pdf form, should you find looking and listening to Sir Muir Russel, revolting. Hey, I'm just here to pamper you with choices.
Why did I say that we can predict the outcome? Well, come on...we're Malaysians, we are the creator of "Independent" bodies to carry out any investigations concerning any screw up that happens in our country. "Independent" bodies plus Mat Rempits are basically made in Malaysia, since we cannot produce submarines and even buying one causes problems.
For starters, the person leading this investigation is not an independent, in fact far from it. The name Sir (Alastair) Muir Russel KCB DL FRSE suggests that he had somehow rather pleased the right bottoms to get that title. Again, we are Malaysians, go figure.
Even before Muir Russel went on to take up this task, people are questioning his "independent" status. It doesn't take an oracle octopus to predict the outcome of the investigation. Back in December 2009, people like Paul Joseph Watson was cynical about the choice of Muir Russel; you can read the why-s HERE
Then let's recap the damaging e-mails of scientists in East Anglia University.
(CLICK HERE in pdf are all the mails, in case you have all the free time in the world to scrutinize them).
Here's an excerpt from one of the e-mails that had given rise to the Climategate, read for yourself and judge;
This one's from Phil Jones;
Now, the Climategate investigative Committee pulled this explanation from testimony by the CRU itself, which stated:
…as for the (now notorious) word ‘trick’, so deeply appealing to the media, this has been richly misinterpreted and quoted out of context. It was used in an informal email, discussing the difficulties of statistical presentation. It does not mean a ‘ruse’ or method of deception. In context it is obvious that it is used in the informal sense of ‘the best way of doing something’. In this case it was ‘the trick or knack’ of constructing a statistical illustration which would combine the most reliable proxy and instrumental evidence of temperature trends.
Conclusion to the Investigation:
"The committee contends that when Jones stated “hide the decline” in an email to his colleagues, he was referring to discarding erroneous data, rather than deliberately concealing it."
Another "wtf" moment. This kind of reminded me of Uni days, when we would create data to fit into the conclusion of an experiment. I mean, we know the end product to be a solid theory, why not save time creating data to fit into the well establish theory. The extra time saved can be used to study the subjects that matters to get us into the Medical Faculty. Well, didn't encounter much physics in the medical line, but that is another story. Syyyyy......it will be our little secret.
As how scientist McIntyre points out that at no time did even the CRU (Climatic Research Unit) itself contend that any of its data was “erroneous”, so to conclude that it had to dispose of such data is ludicrous:
Here is another interesting article, "Forget the E-mails; Code Discusses 'Artificially Adjusted' Temperatures".
In addition, their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be erroneous” is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was “erroneous” – the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up – but that doesn’t make it “erroneous”. It only means that the data is a bad proxy – something that was concealed from IPCC readers.
Obviously these scientists learned something from the Malaysian Uni students like me, as proven in this excerpt from that article:
“People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing,” writes Steve Mcintyre.
Stephen McIntyre , the editor of Climate Audit, had THIS to say. Some excerpt:
They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh."
He, McIntyre also the same chap who said, in regards of the "Hockey stick" controversy;
"In financial circles, we talk about a hockey stick curve when some investor presents you with a nice, steep curve in the hope of palming something off on you."
It's no wonder Michael Mann, including a few more scientists, wrote to the Independent Investigator Sir Muir Russel, complaining about McIntyre..READ IT HERE (in pdf form) for yourself. It would be interesting to note that they dare "suggest" things to an independent investigating unit.
Another scientist, who we may never hear being interviewed in the mainstream media would be, Tim Ball. Ball lived up to his name when he wrote Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults.
Andrew Bolt, wrote on the Herald Sun , "Even a whitewash can't hide the faults"
Okay then, what next? Let's try to stick to the science behind the climate change, not the politics behind it. Here's a good video and a must listen for those who want to have a centrist scientist's point of in view of the climate change. You listen and you go out there and do your own research. My job is to fill in for the failure of mainstream media, that is to bring forth the voices that are not heard and not given the chance to.
I shall be back with a related post soon...maybe after the finale of the FIFA World Cup eh?