What is the scientific point of view?

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,397
29,715
La La Land North
Your pathetic blog link made me show you how it's done. And it can be quite easy. First, read the links within the Wikipedia entry on this. Most of these are not from some blogger working out of his mom's basement, they are published in peer reviewed literature.

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia

And then just Google "east anglia email controversy". Just to start you off, here's the first link. There are tons of them.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

And you got a blog with nothing backing it up. You lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lloyd Christmas
Nov 2012
41,281
11,887
Lebanon, TN
Much of research, at least at the university level is to confirm or disprove currently accepted theories.

Thus I don't know what point you are trying to make.

You can get as much if not more cred from showing someone to be wrong than from discovering something.

unless it comes to climate then the universities is to censor opposing data.
 
Sep 2014
1,582
205
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
East Anglia emails were private opinions of others. And none of that was related to published data. Al Gore was mostly correct. In fact given the knowledge base at the time he was exemplary. The whole "hockey stick" kerfuffle was a total strawman. The argument was between theoretical mathematicians about some obscure statistical analytical methods which had no impact on the results.

But of course the deniers don't want to hear the truth.
A "Virgin" Forest Is a Sign of Emasculated Impotence

Proof of how low you nasty Warmalarmie weirdos have to sink is that you appropriate the word used against Neo-Nazi nutbags who deny the Holocaust. Godwinism is the main sacrament of the Gaia religion.
 
Jul 2008
19,331
13,449
Virginia Beach, VA
unless it comes to climate then the universities is to censor opposing data.
Absolute horseshit. There is no reason, nothing to gain, by “censoring” opposing data. Taking that data and deciding it is not worth considering is not “censoring”
 
Nov 2012
41,281
11,887
Lebanon, TN
Absolute horseshit. There is no reason, nothing to gain, by “censoring” opposing data. Taking that data and deciding it is not worth considering is not “censoring”

It is not male bovine manure, Mann stated he had to ALTER (change) historical data because he had to hide that his climate model was inaccurate, Jones responded "I have your back"
 
Jul 2008
19,331
13,449
Virginia Beach, VA
It is not male bovine manure, Mann stated he had to ALTER (change) historical data because he had to hide that his climate model was inaccurate, Jones responded "I have your back"
Still more horseshit from the DTT horseshitter in chief.

In November 2009, hackers obtained a large number of emails exchanged among researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and with other scientists, including Mann. The release of their correspondence on the Internet sparked the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, commonly known as 'Climategate',[41][42] in which extracts from emails were publicized to raise accusations against the scientists. A series of investigations cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. Detailed analysis by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the critics made unsupported accusations of falsification and manipulation or destruction of data and were commonly mistaken about the scientific issues.[43][44]

Mann was specifically cleared by several inquiries. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and his research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties.[45][46]

The EPA gave detailed consideration to petitions with allegations against Mann from lobbyists including the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Ohio Coal Association: the EPA found their claims were not supported by the evidence.[43][47]

At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of inappropriate manipulation of data.[44][48] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.[44][49][50]