Originally Posted by Hands Sandon
This third nail firmly seals the Denialists coffin tightly shut.
Denialist + Climategate = "Shut the bleep up you moran".
I thought it would be appropriate to give our resident Denialists a chance to admit that they were wrong all along. Please Denialists, take this opportunity to repent in this specially designed thread. We won't mock you for it.
Hands Sandon and Sammi Jo are such cards. Are they serious?
Let’s see, the cause of the controversy were hacked/leaked email exchanges that suggested there might be an manipulation and suppression of data (among other unethical actions). The “independent” Russell panelists were charged to examine any and all information held at CRU, including all emails, in order to discover the extent of their suspect doings and to find out if they were at odds with scientific practice and therefore may have badly tainted their science research.
So what did this panel do?
Well Muir Russell and other panelists did not even bother to attend the interviews of the suspects. And even though they were obligated to examine all the CRU emails (of which the hacked emails only represented a tiny portion) they were totally unsccussful. Why? Because, they said, the police was examining the evidence, and besides there was too much to look at, and besides, they consulted with the UAE attorneys (the fellows that supervised CRU) and they suggested it might cause legal troubles for the institutiion.
LOL…Hopefully this hapless Muir crew never quits their day jobs to become real private or police investigators. If I were under investigation I’d love it if these wanna-be detectives said “Oh Mr. Parrish, you may have been guilty of wrong doing but a) you have too many records to look at, and b) we sought the advice of your attorney and he said it would be a bad idea”.
As laughable as this cover story is, it becomes even more dubious when one actually reviews the sequence of events, the gaps and/or ginned documented timelines, and the actual comments of the technical expert hired to go through CRU emails.http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/t...er/#more-11414
This is now 4 and 1/2 months after Muir Russell’s appointment – it took (at most) two weeks to coordinate with the police and four months for Muir Russell to get around to it.
The April 28 minutes report that an analyst has been engaged by UEA – this is now 5 months from the release of the dossier….
On May 14, he had been supplied with thumb drives containing all the emails extracted from the back-up server. He reported that he was permitted to examine the emails only under conditions of extreme security…
He stated that the emails were in Thunderbird and “time constraints in
preparing this initial report preclude indexing and any form of sophisticated analysis.” He said that analysis might take “several weeks”
Sommer reported on May 17. UEA elected not to authorize the analysis. Muir Russell’s ineptitude and inertia resulted in no attempt being made to even begin an examination of the other emails until late April, and by mid-May, they decided it was already too late to bother.
So the analysist is hired, two weeks later (and a few days after getting CRU email data) he says it might take several weeks to analysize SO then his project is cancelled?
Are they clowns? In more meanings than one - yes.