Monday, July 19, 2010

In some of the latest corrupt scientist globular warmering news,

Yeah, that inquiry was really thorough and fair, wasn't it?
Previously I have said this about the lack of integrity regarding the recent Climategate investigations:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?

Now from Bishop Hill we learn that it appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review. So let me amend what I said above:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a “fair sample”, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
This entire mess is snowballing again with UEA, CRU, and Dr. Jones right at the center again.
I'll repeat what I said before: this is a disgrace not only because of the trashing of the scientific method with the aim of getting the preferred conclusion, but because- when you have not only the original fraud but the current 'pretend to investigate' bullcrap- you're giving people reason to doubt the science overall. Why trust scientists when they'll not only twist things this way, but other scientists will cover for them with crap like this?

1 comment:

martywd said...

Everything is political now.   Scientific integrity?   For the most part just a dream.
.