let us get THIS out of the way first. THERE IS NO HOAX. only nuts think that there is.
a review of the debacle was commisioned by the British High Court, executed by an independant committee headed by Sir Muir Russell and a team including Professo Geoffrey Boulton, Professor Peter Clarke, David Eyton and Professor James Norton. they concluded:
“On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"
“We do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”
a second review conducted by Lord Oxburg concluded:
“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it”. a review by The House Of Commons Science and Technolgoy Assessment Committe concluded:
"the scientific reputation of Professor Jones in CRU remains intact".
-
source
ah... but... THEY are all in on it aren't they? yeah... them CRU scientists are splitting the grant money with politicians and other academinc types (man... those euros are getting pretty thin by this point... and they STILL have to pay off all the lab technicians... and all the scienttists ELSEWHERE in the world who are ALSO IN ON THE HOAX).
Well, who can we ask that might have as much skin in the game on the other side???? How about the Bank Of Germany..
Deutche Bank?
Well, therir conclusion was that "
the primary claims of the skeptics do not undermine that assertion that human-made climate change is already happening and is a serious long term threat".
In fact, they say, SIMPLE REASON will tell you that it is bound to happen. CO2 captures heat. end of discussion. without other mitigating processes, the earth will heat up.
ok... but the CRU? they are still crooks, right?
"there is no evidence that scientists have engaged in alleged conspiracies".
-
Deutsche Bank report - Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments, September 2010
The EPA reviewed and found
"… petitioners have routinely misunderstood or mischaracterised the scientific issues, drawn faulty scientific conclusions, resorted to hyperbole, impugned the ethics of climate scientists in general, characterised actions as “falsifications” and “manipulation” with no basis for support, and placed an inordinate reliance on blogs, news stories, and literature that is often neither peer reviewed nor accurately summarized in their petitions. Petitioners often “cherry-pick” language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues or providing corroborating evidence that improper action actually occurred. . .Petitioners’ assumptions and subjective assertions regarding what the e-mails purport to show about the state of climate change science are clearly inadequate pieces of evidence to challenge the voluminous and well documented body of science that is the technical foundation of the Administrator’s Endangerment Finding"EPA reports
in polite terms, paranoic delusion. in less polite terms, complete bull****. now, let us get to your comments, shall we?
geo.
