Head of Climategate' research unit admits he hid data

Yeah! It's just standard scientific practice to do that! LOL! Y

Prof Jones today said it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.

#2
LOD, that sounds like an argument straight out of the pharmaceutical industry.

#2
LOD, that sounds like an argument straight out of the pharmaceutical industry.

#3 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-03-02 12:09 PM

Quote from Phil Jones in the article: "I don't think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way."

The headline is misleading and doesn't match the actual story. The British press has been astonishingly bad at covering this subject lately.

The headline is misleading and doesn't match the actual story.

Look at the idiot who posted it. Did you expect anything different?

Skidmark strikes again!

The headline is misleading and doesn't match the actual story.

Surprise surprise

The British press has been astonishingly bad at covering this subject lately.

Lately?

Many of these climate science threads have been from UK papers, many of which are written by a blogger.

And then the posters wonder why it isn't taken seriously.

Ya' think?

"Prof Jones today said it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.

He also said the scientific journals which had published his papers had never asked to see it."

Sure makes it convenient when lying and hiding shit that "no one asked for it".

And this guy purports to be a scientist??

"The headline is misleading and doesn't match the actual story."

That doesn't stop Murphy from demonstrating her utter stupidity. Dumb as a dust bunny, that one.

"The headline is misleading and doesn't match the actual story."

Isn't that about par for this course actually?

GW deniers are liars. Time and again we see that in the misleading threads they post, and claims they make.

#6 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-03-02 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't work any more, moron :)

Not just because you are a discredited fraud either.

#5 rcade
Quote from Phil Jones in the article: "I don't think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way."

The headline is misleading and doesn't match the actual story. The British press has been astonishingly bad at covering this subject lately.

Really? So every time a new daily mini-fraud is found and reported (on top of the major climategate scandal itself), as it has happened dozens of times already, when the perpetrator attempts to minimize the fraud, it is ASSUMED fact by the controlled left. Therefore, 'the headline is misleading'. Further, it could never become FP no matter the 'source'. You are an amazing asset, even if unwittingly to the globalist agenda.

I said the headline is misleading because it's misleading. Jones did not admit "sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data." The quotes by him in the story make this clear.

You are an amazing asset, even if unwittingly to the globalist agenda.

Of course. And you're the only one who can see the real truth. Let's just accept that as a given from now on.

Prof Jones today said it was not 'standard practice' in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.

* * * *

Really? I thought that's what "peer review" means.

rcade,
And you're the only one who can see the real truth. Let's just accept that as a given from now on.

No, and No it is NOT a given. I may sometimes be more vocal or straight forward on the issue, but your attempt to minimize the grass roots that reject both left- and right- pundits that lead to the same globalist elites is by no means individual. Your Alinsky tactic holds no water.

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

Yes - repeat it loud and often for effect. Libtards are notoriously hard of hearing when it comes to differing opinions.

But, but, but, but the icebergs that hit the titanic......ZAT.

Peer review in climatology sounds a lot like peer review in pharmaceuticals at Walgreens.

Still measuring climate change by your pool temp ZAT?

#18 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-03-02 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag: never published a paper in his irrelevant little life

Since YOU brought up my pool, shit-for-brains, it was in December 2009 when it hit 68 degrees, just like in 2008. In 2000 it hit 68 degrees in September.

The derived statistical relation, Sea Ice Extent = -0.030x CO2 +22,97 on the B1 and A2 CO2 scenario, showed the sea ice extent was several million km less than that predicted by the IPCC models for 2050 (figure 2). Furthermore, using the above statistical equation and setting the ice equal zero and solving for CO2, the result is that all ice, both summer and winter, will disappear when the CO2 equals 765 ppmv. It is then that the Blue Arctic Ocean will appear.

... your attempt to minimize the grass roots that reject both left- and right- pundits that lead to the same globalist elites is by no means individual. Your Alinsky tactic holds no water.

I didn't know simple reading comprehension was an Alinsky tactic. That guy was ruthless!