---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Follow Goanet on Twitter ***
http://twitter.com/goanet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought Gabriel had claimed in his previous post that he would not post any
more on this subject. Here is his exact quote:
"No more from me on this subject, whatever the outcome of the investigations.
Let truth prevail."
....Gabriel de Figueiredo
Please see
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-February/189934.html
But putting that aside, the post appended below is another piece of damning
evidence that his is a political/ideological campaign against climate science
and scientists, not any genuine skepticism towards scientific data and
interpretations. As you can see, he is still not able to provide actual graphs
and numbers contradicting the scientific data on global warming, CO2 rise and
the greenhouse effect. All he can do is provide links to a parliamentary
website, and a partisan political website set up by a U.S. senator who is
opposed to climate science on ideological and conspiracy theorist grounds.
The deceptive nature of the latter website is immediately obvious when you look
at the list of so-called 400 "scientists". The list includes scores of
economists, TV weathermen, industry consultants, lobbyists, activists and
mathematicians. In fact, as a geology graduate Gabriel could have easily been
on that list, and would have been more qualified than many who are on it right
now.
Regarding the hacked emails, let me restate the following:
1. No credible scientist or scientific organization has made any serious
allegation of scientific fraud against climate scientists based on the
information contained in the hacked emails.
2. In fact, the world's most reputed scientific journal "Nature" has exposed
the unjustified nature of the false allegations. Please see the quotes and link
to its editorial below:
QUOTE
Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is
real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is
supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are
completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the
e-mails...........
A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists'
conspiracy theories........
Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy,
however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end,
neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was
published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers........
Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy,
however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end,
neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was
published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.........
The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate
some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data
using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word
that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their
results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are
substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails
qualifies.
UNQUOTE
......The scientific journal NATURE
3. The police criminal investigation is focused only on the illegal hacking of
private personal emails. Please see the following official letter from the
University of East Anglia:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/091210_UEA_Vice-Chancellor_Letter.pdf
4. The quote in the post appended below concerns an independent review
commissioned by the University of East Anglia to ascertain the truth or falsity
of the wild allegations and speculations made in the lay press. Please see the
following quote regarding this in the above letter from the Vice Chancellor of
the university:
QUOTE
None of the adjusted station data referred to in the emails that have been
published has been destroyed. When we receive Sir Muir's findings we will
understand which if any of the allegations stand and which fall and we will act
accordingly . We will publish the findings and the University's response.
UNQUOTE
Cheers,
Santosh
--- On Wed, 2/17/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <gdefigueir...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Would like to point out that the current investigations,
> besides into hacking of emails, is also related to the
> content of the messages.
>
> http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm
> quote:
> The Independent Review will:
> 1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant
> e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to
> determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation
> or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable
> scientific practice and may therefore call into question any
> of the research outcomes.
> Unquote
>
> Also see http://www.cce-review.org/index.php
>
> US readers please confirm if the following is a legitimate
> site or not, as well as the information contained therein.
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
> quote:
> Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen
> countries recently voiced significant objections to major
> aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global
> warming.
> Unquote
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gabriel.
>
> PS Pardon me if I take too long in replying to emails
> relating to above.
>
