That's totally crazy, dude. You have been lied to and now you have no idea what actually happened. You're just parroting idiotic denier cult propaganda and lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptif219
The CRU was being deliberately inundated with very large numbers of boilerplate FOI demands regarding the raw temperature data the CRU used to compute global-average temperatures in a blatant attempt to waste their time with irrelevancies and create legal problems. The CRU couldn't legally release all of that data until it obtained permission from the owners, namely the various national meteorological services that collected the data and legally 'owned' it. Over the last few years, the CRU worked hard to secure permission to release all of that raw data and last summer they were finally legally able to release all of the raw data, except for a tiny amount from Poland which is still refusing permission. So what did all of you deniers who complained so bitterly about the "hidden data" do when it was released? Did you immediately rush to analyze the data yourselves to see if the reported temperature trends were accurate? LOLOLOLOL. Well, of course not. If the deniers who were demanding the CRU temperature data (and screaming "climategate" when they couldn't get it as soon as they wanted it) weren't so lazy and incompetent, they could have verified that the CRU global-temperature results were completely valid immediately after the CRU released all that raw data. Verifying the validity of the CRU results (and the NASA/NOAA results as well) from the raw data released by the CRU last summer is something that a competent analyst could have done the very same day that the CRU released the data. But here we are, about six months after the big CRU data release, and the deniers who had been demanding that data for the previous two years have produced absolutely nothing except more mindless denial of reality.
No, I don't mean that. I guess that's another of your wacko denier cult myths. It's really a shame you've been so badly bamboozled and duped by those with a financial interest in selling fossil fuels.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptif219
Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
Union of Concerned Scientists
(excerpts)
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.
* A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
* Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia "supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
* The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded: "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
* The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
* Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
* Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
* An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
