Usted no se lo cree

Ir al artículo

1. George Monbiot – Filth and Fury – The Guardian -08/07/2010 – http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/07/07/filth-and-fury/
   ““You are a fucking douchebag. You pathetic fucking Phony. I hope there is an earthquake right under your fucking house and swallows you into hell.” Does this offend you? If so, you haven’t been involved in the climate wars. This message, one of many sent recently to climate scientists and now published by the Guardian(1), is almost sweet by comparison to the gallant emails some of us receive every week. Many of these missives, perhaps revealing more about the senders than they intend, involve promises to insert implausibly large items of military hardware into the recipient’s anus. At first, years ago, they alarmed me. After a while, realising that most of the silver-tongued chevaliers who send them live on the other side of the Atlantic, don’t possess passports and would struggle to place the United Kingdom on a map, I stopped worrying. But to stay in this game you need, among other anatomical impossibilities, a tungsten skin.”
2. Morano and Lindzen: Mann exoneration a “whitewash” – Deep Climate – 02/07/2010 –  – http://deepclimate.org/2010/07/02/morano-and-lindzen-mann-exoneration-a-whitewash/
   “At least it’s clear that Lindzen thinks it obvious that temperature data sets or reconstructions have been fudged.  Shouldn’t someone call him on the lack of any actual evidence for this extraordinary assertion?  Morano, of course has no such qualms about Lindzen’s reliability. Indeed, Morano’s covering his bets by pointing to Lindzen’s recent comments as well as  his own. After reading Morano’s screed, many Morano contacts may find Lindzen’s comments downright mild and reasonable. Others, especially in the blogosphere, may prefer Morano’s own over-the-top rhetoric. Either way, Morano gets his message out.  This is not the first time Lindzen has played a key role in propagating, and even crafting, contrarian memes. Lindzen is an indefatigable proponent of the “global warming has paused” meme; for example, in the same WSJ piece referenced above he claimed:  ‘Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned’.  Less known is the fact that Lindzen actually originated the bogus “no statistically siginificant warming since 1995″ talking point that later tripped up CRU scientist Phil Jones … And we all know what Morano did with that one – eventually.  This time, it probably won’t take that long. Now that Morano and Lindzen have told them what to say, and even given them a menu of rhetorical options, will the likes of the Wall Street Journal and the National Post keep silent for long? Not likely.”
3. Sir Muir Russell (2010) – The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review – 07/07/2010 – 5 authors – http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf –  Versión más legible aquí: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34003747/Muir-Russell-Final
   “8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted. It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work. Such an outcome could only come through the normal processes of scientific debate and not from the examination of e-mails or from a series of interviews about conduct … 13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. 14. In addition, 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. 15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.”
4. The hate emails sent to climate scientists – The Guardian, 06/07/2010 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/06/hacked-climate-science-emails-sceptics-abuse
   “You are a climate change nazi. Fuck you and your armed UN security guards who try to stifle fre speech and investigative journalism. One Big Ass Mistake America”
5. The Muir-Russell report – Real Climate – 07/07/2010 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/
   “With respect to the continuing barrage of FOI requests (which are predominantly for personal communications rather than for data), we can attest from personal experience how disconcerting these can be at first. Since there are no limits on what can be asked for (though there are many limits on what will be delivered), scientists presented with these requests often find them personally invasive and inappropriate. Institutions that do not have much experience with these kinds of requests, and who are not aware of what their employees do that is, and is not, covered by the legislation, are often not much help in sorting out how to respond. This can certainly be improved, as can the awareness of the community of what is recoverable using these procedures. While it is not relevant to the legislation, nor to what can be released, the obvious bad faith of many of the requesters indicates that actual information about the functioning of public bodies is not the primary goal in making these requests. However, it would be a terrible mistake for scientists to retreat from the public discussion on climate science because of these attempts at intimidation.”
6. «George Monbiot – Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignations – George Monbiot’s Blog – 02/02/2010  – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails
   “The emails I read gave me the impression that Phil Jones had something to hide. Now we know what it might have been. The Guardian has discovered that Jones appears to have suppressed data that undermines a paper he published in Nature in 1990.”
   
7. George Monbiot – Filth and Fury – The Guardian -08/07/2010 – http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/07/07/filth-and-fury/
   “So was I wrong to have called, soon after this story broke, for Jones’s resignation?(14) I think, on balance, that I was. He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law. But he was also provoked beyond endurance. I think, in the light of everything I’ve now seen and read, that if I were to write that article again I would conclude that Phil Jones should hang on – but only just. I hope the last review gives him some peace.”
8. Joseph Romm – Penn State inquiry finds no evidence for allegations against Michael Mann – Climate Progress – 04/02/2010  – http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/04/penn-state-michael-mann-hockey-stick-science/
   “Hockey Stick» scientist vindicated once again. This finding is a big setback for the anti-science crowd, who have been going after Mann full throttle, trying to find imaginary whistleblowers to accuse him and others at Penn State of fraud (see “Anti-science disinformers step up efforts to intimidate and harass climate scientists.” The anti-scientists hate Mann, one of the country’s leading climatologists, for his role in creating the Hockey Stick graph, which they still maintain is fraudulent, when in fact it was essentially vindicated in a thorough examination by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (see NAS Report and here).”
9. Suzanne Goldenberg – Michael Mann cleared of science fraud charges made by climate sceptics – The Guardian – 02/07/2010  – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/02/michael-mann-cleared
   “The climate scientist Michael Mann, who has been under relentless attack from sceptics since the exposure of emails at East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, was cleared of research misconduct by a university investigation yesterday. The four-month internal investigation by Pennsylvania State University found no evidence for charges made by climate sceptics that Mann had violated university ethics. The committee cleared Mann of the much more serious charges of falsifying and manipulating data last February.”
10. Henry C. Foley, Alan W. Scaroni, Candice A. Yekel (2010) – RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning the Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences – The Pennsylvania State University – 03/02/2010 – Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School; Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; Director, Office for Research Protections, Research Integrity Officer – http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
    “In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.”
11. Eli Kintisch (2010) – Climate Scientist Mann Partially Absolved by Penn State – Science Insider – 03/02/2010 – http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/climate-scienti-1.html
    “But the Penn State inquiry board said the term “trick” is used by scientists and mathematicians to refer to an insight that solves a problem. “The so-called ‘trick’ was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field,” the panel said. The e-mail messages also contained suggestions that Dr. Mann had purposely hidden or destroyed e-mail messages and other information relating to a United Nations climate change report to prevent other scientists from reviewing them. Dr. Mann produced the material in question, and the Penn State board cleared him of the charge.   There were also questions of whether Dr. Mann misused confidential data and engaged in a conspiracy with like-minded scientists to withhold information from competing scholars. The Penn State board found nothing to support the charge.”
12. Sarah M. Assmann, Welford Castleman, Mary Jane Irwin, Nina G. Jablonski, Fred W. Vondracek and Candice Yekel (2010) – RA-1O Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E, Mann – 04/06/2010 – Waller Professor, Department of Biology; Evan Pugh Professor and Eberly Distinguished Chair in Science, Department of Chemistry and Depmtment of Physics; Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering; Department Head and Professor, Department of Anthropology; Professor, Department of Human Development and Family Studies; Director of the Office for Research Protections – http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
    “The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University. More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. The decision of the Investigatory Committee was unanimous.”
13. Christopher Horner – Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part Three) – Pajamas Media – 40228 –  http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-three/
    “In an August 7, 2007, email from GISS’ Dr. Reto Ruedy to GISS director Dr. James Hansen, Ruedy says the correction had “little impact” on the U.S. record. In an email to New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin on August 9, 2007, Hansen characterizes the error as having been “well within the uncertainty bar we give” for the U.S. and “entirely negligible” globally. In an email to Dr. Donald E. Anderson — program manager, Earth Science Enterprise, NASA Headquarters — on August 14, 2007, Hansen used the terms “minor,” “negligible,” and “less than the uncertainty” to describe the previously touted warming which was now shown to be an error.”