CSIRO chief defends climate science

[Infusi0n]

I, like many other scientists, am skeptical about the data. Most scientists I know believe there is an issue but thanks to climate change being a predominantly POLITICAL issue, any and all data that gets released tends to have heavy bias towards specific political views included with it. When you hear that data that is opposing the current view gets labelled as false positives/negative, or that scientists have "lost data" that would potentially oppose their specific theory you know that there are some outside issues. First rule as a research scientist, no data that you produce, no matter how weird or different, no matter HOW LONG AGO it was can be destroyed. You do the experiment, you keep the data, destruction of large tracts of climate data is completely discrediting to the people involved.

[Spock]

When you hear that data that is opposing the current view gets labelled as false positives/negative, or that scientists have "lost data" that would potentially oppose their specific theory you know that there are some outside issues...

University of East Anglia rejects lost climate data claims

The university at the centre of the row over emails sent by climate scientists today rejected accusations that it had lost or manipulated scientific research.
The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been under fire since hacked emails, which sceptics claimed showed scientists manipulating climate data, were leaked online last year.
In a submission to parliament's science and technology committee, which is investigating the disclosure of climate data from the unit, the university said it "strongly rejected" accusations that it had manipulated or selected figures to exaggerate global warming.
The university also denied suggestions that it had breached Freedom of Information rules by refusing to release raw data.
And it insisted the CRU had not lost any primary data gathered from monitoring stations around the world.
According to the submission, allegations that scientists hid flaws and research findings were the result of misunderstandings of technical jargon or statistical analysis.
And it said the often-cited email which refers to a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a discussion of temperature measurements had been "richly misinterpreted and quoted out of context".
The submission sets out science-based responses to a number of allegations that researchers attempted to mislead, misrepresent or did not effectively manage the data held at the CRU.

Conservative media have recently suggested that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia intentionally "threw out" or "destroyed" the raw temperature data "underpinning the man-made-warming theory," in the words of the New York Post, echoing a recent London Times article that said it is "now impossible" to examine how the CRU made its conclusions. In fact, according to the scientists, the raw data is still available at the meteorological services where they obtained it -- director Phil Jones said the CRU simply did not keep copies for "less than 5 percent of its original station data" in its database because those "stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends."

[Maxo]

"Conservative media have recently suggested that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit..." quote from mediamatters.org

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Media Matters for America

....


mmmmmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmm.. reliable

[Spock]

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Well isn't it great that someone is doing this.

[Maxo]

Considering it is just a bunch of journo's shitting on other journo's, it is interesting, but I wouldn't be using it as proof for anything.

[richie_b]

i know i use fox for all my fair and balanced news.

[jules_1972]

Interest rate rise is more important to me......

[=Stevo=]

Today tonight are exposing the REAL truths behind Australian issues...

[jules_1972]

Doom and Gloom from Today tonight....

Make people feel better paying more for electricity.

Psychological preparation of societies minds to justify price increases...

More crap, bit like people believing Multa Nova actually do something other
than make a presence on the annual state budget....

[gordonleslie]

University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’ - Times Online

The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

Climategate professor Phil Jones admits sending 'pretty awful emails' | Mail Online

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility.

The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data.

**EDIT - all old (ish) news - trying to show that linking media articles is similar to showing dodgy graphs or statistics