The full report on ‘Climategate’ by Muir Russell can be found here. Watch for how many conservatives change their tone from “The data was made up!” to just plain old ad hominen attacks on Jones et al.
Also, look at this reader comment from another article. (I’ve added italics for readability.)
“…it did revisit the now infamous e-mail exchange between Jones and a colleague in which the climatologist refers to a a ‘trick’ used to ‘hide the decline’ in a variable used to track global temperatures.
Some skeptics took that as proof that scientists were faking global temperature trends. Russell’s report rejected that conclusion, but did say the resulting graph was ‘misleading’ — although not intentionally so.”
____________________________
Russell’s report lies on this point. Clearly, if you direct someone to use a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a way that is in fact misleading, it’s just a bald-faced lie to say the deception wasn’t intentional.
Muir Russell, you lie.
This is infuriating. This user, azmaveth, aside from having a terrible user name, hasn’t even bothered to try and understand what any of the terms in the emails mean in a scientific context. He’s just another conservative who is concerned with the profit margins of corporations, not the truth of science.
Filed under: News | Tagged: azmaveth, Climategate, Global Warming, Muir Russell |
For the Sake of Science 
Is your point that global warming liars should actually engage in science instead of their current purely political strategy?
That is an excerpt from this independent study. I’d say maybe the CRU should conform to current scientific procedures.
Your statement accurately reflects my opinion of much of the “climate science” out there. Yes some science instead of eco-politics would be nice. Might want to balance “saving” the earth with destroying modern civilization also.
No issue was found in the science done by CRU. The piece you quote makes the point that those who have sought to find some issues have not done so scientifically.
From the last line I take that there may be issue on both sides.
Like I said it was an “independent” review not an independent review.