Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (82666)	4/15/2010 10:44:30 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224748

Climate-Gate Gets A Whitewash Global Warming: The first probe into the integrity of the science being conducted at the Climatic Research Unit is in and nothing's changed. Those who created and perpetuated this sham are not called into account. It was quite obvious, judging by the communications between climate researchers, that there was something wrong with the scientific process at the University of East Anglia's CRU. E-mails from the unit made public last fall indicated the scientists were dishonest and conspiratorial, that the outcome of their research — proof that man is dangerously warming his planet — was more important than the facts. The university, as it should have, commissioned two independent inquiries into what became known as the Climate-gate scandal. But what has transpired since then doesn't exactly inspire confidence. At five pages long, the report from the first probe doesn't say much. The researchers are "dedicated if slightly disorganized" and did not engage in deceitful practices, the panel believes. If there are exaggerations, well, they were made by other organizations that didn't properly use the CRU's data. The sugarcoated report should be no surprise. The probe was conducted by Lord Oxburgh, an academic who was briefly chairman of Shell. He is now, according to the Financial Post, chair of Falck Renewables, a firm that has wind farms across Europe, and chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, "a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $1 trillion industry by 2050." Imagine that. A man with a financial interest in companies that would benefit from efforts to arrest man-made global warming is asked to look into the possible scientific malpractice of researchers whose conclusions are favorable to his business concerns. Oxburgh is a man of clear bias who should have never been allowed to be near the probe. Six years ago, he told the British press that "if we don't have (carbon) sequestration, I see very little hope for the world." In fact, he said he was "really very worried for the planet," without large-scale sequestration. Three years later he said, "We are sleepwalking" into a global warming disaster of such proportion that the world might need "regulations which impose very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases." Yes, just the man to have in charge of an investigation of researchers who seem more concerned with politics than science. The Oxburgh panel could have at least spoken to one global warming skeptic, but reportedly it did not. It did, however, include David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who was critical of the way the CRU handled statistics. The famed hockey stick, a chart that supposedly shows a recent sharp rise in the global temperature, "exaggerated the effect," Hand said. The stick's blade, he believes, should have been smaller. Though the report said, "It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians," the professor had little dispute with the overall findings of the researchers, saying the statistical errors don't "detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions." While the CRU crew is probably relieved, the argument isn't over nor has a consensus been reached. Just as the Oxburgh panel was releasing its report, New Scientist reporter Susan Clark was writing about the effects of the sun on climate. New research from Britain's University of Reading "finds that low solar activity promotes the formation of giant kinks in the jet stream," she writes. "These kinks can block warm westerly winds from reaching Europe, while allowing in winds from Arctic Siberia. "When this happens in winter, northern Europe freezes, even though other, comparable regions of the globe may be experiencing unusually mild conditions." The study was initiated "because these past two relatively cold British winters coincided with a lapse in the sun's activity more profound than anything seen for a century." In other words, something other than man's carbon dioxide emissions might be impacting the climate. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham continue to push a global warming bill to cut CO2 emissions, despite growing doubts about the science and despite the trillions of dollars it would cost the U.S. economy. Do they not know the case for such action is unraveling?