Comments on: Climategate Watch: Phil Jones to be peer-reviewed.

By: katesmith

katesmith — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:19:38 +0000

Certain individuals along with the UN decided CO2 would be the way to break western civilization. This isn’t a conspiracy theory–the UN’s top IPCC guy said it again yesterday, ie “our lifestyles are unsustainable.” He (Panchauri) is described in the press as the world’s leading climate scientist. I checked his cv and has no training in the field. His degrees are in industrial engineering and economics. Our Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that CO2 is a pollutant and chided the executive branch for not realizing this. The alleged best information on the subject probably came from East Anglia, the Sierra Club, Al Gore, etc. All to be used to impose cap and trade. I await the Supreme Court overturning its own decision. This is anything but an everyday disagreement in the stacks or the lab. I read half the guys in Copenhagen will be from island nations who are positive their nations are being swallowed up by the ocean. They believe it is the US’s fault and want many billions from us immediately. This is what they’re saying and it’s what the UN guys are saying. This farce came this far due to politicians and the media.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:53:44 +0000

wonder if they have the guts to come here and ask to be forgiven for looking down upon us for our skepticism.

Even if they still think that there is something to Global Warming, WE were obviously RIGHT to doubt the so called facts that were being shoved in front of us.

By: tenebrous

tenebrous — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:16:51 +0000

He’s right, of course. Both AGW and Darwinism are tenants of faith built on poor or no science background. The myths and legends arising from both are multitudinous. Seriously, folks. “Green power” and “Just-so stories”. “Carbon credits” and “beneficial mutations”. The hubris of man is never-ending, but the house of cards always falls with a crash.

By: JoeG

JoeG — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:47:14 +0000

Normally I reserve it for the 0 administration, but I’m willing to share it with these guys.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:13:53 +0000

The University should be in charge of making sure there was no political (so to speak) corruption of the process. It’s the journals that you force to answer for failure to rigorously check the data.

Now, if the University has their fingers in keeping the source algorithm secret, that’s a different beast. And that beast needs to be challenged by the whole community.

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:05:29 +0000

By: blooch

blooch — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:55:04 +0000

Now that you mention it, I have a vague memory of both pjshifty and pliny identifying themselves a couple of years ago. Isn’t pliny Australian?

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:55:59 +0000

They’re definitely two separate individuals. They just happen to worship at the same alter.

Peruse Joliphant’s archives to find the answer you seek.

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:43:59 +0000

PSU should consider expanding the inquiry to include the source documents and open an investigation to verify the accuracy of the algorithm Mann used to create his hockey stick.

By: anotherindyfilmguy

anotherindyfilmguy — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:14:00 +0000

determined that *real wrongdoing has occurred* then all these lying, conniving scumbags masquerading as scientists while sucking down the public funds faster than free beer (funds that could have been otherwise used for some real advancement of mankind) they should all be prosecuted in any and every way prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law…

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:10:45 +0000

Sounds like a whitewash job to me. I may have to step up my research and post before January.

Still, The Collegian is being oddly cautious in the way the article is written. Even 20 years ago they were a reliably lefty source on right of center campus. Maybe somebody there has more sense than some of the administrators. Mann should be on immediate academic leave pending the outcome of the investigation. They can pay his salary until such time as they have further evidence, but he has to step away from the chalupa.

By: Stan(ley) Pruss

Stan(ley) Pruss — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:01:23 +0000

I touch this with the comment that I was also reminded of the history of the “debate” over intelligent design. Again the “peer review” process has been captured by the liberals of the academy who will not allow mention of the outrageously delicate balance of many constants of nature to allow life as we know it. Physicists are only allowed to whisper among themselves about how extremely improbable this is. See for example http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/40432
Prof. Zichichi can get away with this because he is very senior and has had many good experiments.

By: bags64

bags64 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:54:19 +0000

we do not trust them.

they can do nothing to restore the faith short of total refutation of their previous claims.

that’s the danger they run when they first practice to deceive.

By: 10ksnooker

10ksnooker — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:48:59 +0000

Say they collectively wrong, but will they say they were bought off by government grant money?

They knew it was a crock long ago. It took me just a few days to figure out something was bad wrong with the whole AGW processes.

By: Vladimir

Vladimir — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:02:59 +0000

By: blooch

blooch — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:00:05 +0000

After all the years we put up with him, now is when we could have savored the moment while kicking him around a bit. And you know he’d be here with his smartassery, too.

I still subscribe to the unscientific theory that he and Phil Jones were one and the same.

By: Anteater

Anteater — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:50:49 +0000

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:50:49 +0000

Except that mbecker’s comment has the virtue of being accurate, whereas your comment assumes good faith where there is none.

Though I do think you’re correct that too many AGW proponents are trying to manipulate science to adduce proof to an article of secular religious faith rather than seeking truth from scientific inquiry.

I don’t want to touch your reference to the debate over Darwinian evolution with a 10-foot pole (or even a 100-meter pole).

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:44:54 +0000

Penn State is conducting an inquiry into the controversy surrounding a Penn State professor whose illegally leaked e-mails have sparked an international debate over whether he and his colleagues distorted data on global warming.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:42:49 +0000