В прошлый раз когда мы беседовали на эту тему оказалось что твои источники информации ввели тебя в заблуждение по многим пунктам.
Но ты похоже не сделал из этого никаких выводов.
Почитай заключение парламентской комиссии. Из него никак не следует что это "несостоявшаяся утка".
Сам-то ты читал эти емайлы?
Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama! (детская песенка)
The most recent investigation again confirmed that the work is sound, no data has been destroyed, and that the research is rigorous and of high quality. Besides a reprimand for failing to provide climate skeptics with data requested under Britain's Freedom of Information Act, the scientists were essentially entirely vindicated.An independent report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world's leading climate research centers on Wednesday largely vindicated the scientists involved, saying they acted honestly and that their research was reliable.
But the panel of inquiry, led by former U.K. civil servant Muir Russell, did chide scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit for failing to share their data with critics. "We find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt," Russell said. "But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness."
Russell's inquiry is the third major investigation into the theft and dissemination of more than 1,000 e-mails taken from a back-up server at the university.
Phil Jones, the head researcher of the Climate Research Unit, was found to be "completely exonerated" on all charges, and will return to his post after stepping down in the wake of the debacle.
So yes, this marks 3 major investigations, and 3 major vindications of the researchers' work at the CRU..
The notion that Climate Gate exposed any grand hoax or conspiracy can now be laid to rest as 100% deluded (it always has been), as can the idea that it calls into question the science supporting man-made global warming. Some good from the entire affair has come as well, however, scientists have said. They say that they're adopting policies that encourage openness and sharing of data, and will work to better inform the public of their findings.
...In March of 2010, the British House of Commons' Science and Technology committee released the results of their investigation into the scandal, revealing that nothing in the 1,000 emails conflicted with the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity." They concluded that the scientific reputation of the CRU "remains intact." Another independent investigation released in July similarly cleared the scientists, saying they were honest and their research was reliable.
...A new investigation into the 'Climategate' controversy has exonerated U.S. scientists of any wrongdoing. The probe was conducted by the U.S. Commerce Department's inspector general at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
The latest investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department was conducted after Inhofe requested an inquiry into the emails on May 26, 2010. The response, sent to Inhofe this past Friday, states:
In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy |