When in November 2009 a large archive of emails and files from the Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia appeared on the internet a
number of serious allegations were made including:
• that scientists at the CRU had failed to give a full and fair view to policy
makers and the IPCC of all the evidence available to them.
• that they deliberately obstructed access to data and methods to those
taking different viewpoints from themselves;
• that they failed to comply with FOI requirements;
• that they sought to infl uence the review panels of journals in order to prevent
rival scientifi c evidence from being published.
Even if only some of these accusations were substantiated the consequences
for the credibility of climate change science would be immense. This was at a
time when the international negotiations on climate change were foundering
(though not to the extent that they have done subsequently), and when, in
the recession, the public and businesses were beginning to question the costs
they were being asked to bear in order to achieve fundamental changes in
our society.
One would therefore have expected the relevant “authorities”, Government/
Parliament, the University of East Anglia (UAE) and the Royal Society,
to have moved fast and decisively to get to the bottom of the matter. There
was indeed a fl urry of activity and three inquiries were set in train, inlcuding a
hearing by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; the
Climate Change E-mails Review (CCE) set up by UAE and chaired by Sir Muir
Russell; and the Scientifi c Assessment Panel (SAP) set up by UAE in consultation
with the Royal Society and chaired by Lord Oxburgh.
Sadly, as the report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates, all three reports
have serious flaws. His report shows that:
• these enquiries were hurried
• the terms of reference were unclear
• insuffi cient care was taken with the choice of panel members to ensure
balance and independence
• insuffi cient care was taken to ensure the process was independent of
those being investigated, eg the Royal Society allowed CRU to suggest the
papers it should read
• Sir Muir Russell failed to attend the session with the CRU’s Director Professor
Jones and only four of fourteen members of the Science and Technology
Select Committee attended the crucial fi nal meeting to sign off their report.
• record keeping was poor.
But above all, Andrew Montford’s report brings out the disparity between the
treatment of the “incumbents” and the “critics”. The former appear to have
been treated with kid gloves and their explanations readily accepted without
serious challenge. The latter have been disparaged and denied adequate
opportunity to put their case. The CCE report stated that holding public hearings
“would be unlikely to add signifi cant value”, thereby assuming that critics
would not be able to provide any additional information that would help assess
the validity of CRU submissions.
This failure to accord critics rights of audience was despite the fact that Lord
Lawson wrote to Sir Muir Russell when the review was first announced specifi -
cally urging that his panel should take evidence from those outside CRU who
may have been wronged.
The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their
objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confi dence. The
reports have been more Widgery than Saville. Writing in an article The Atlantic,
Clive Crook of the Financial Times referred to “an ethos of suffocating
groupthink”. That is exactly what Andrew Montford has uncovered, with the
reviewers as much part of the group as the scientists.
You can download the rest of the report here www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
Stumble It!
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pre ... ts/oxburgh
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 2545a.html
Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
No whore like an old whore.
Bio fuels are a good example, which actually increase environmental problems including global warming in the proccess, as does the scrap the junkers program , and the proposals for nuclear power.
The presence of the inevitable scammers doesn't have anything to do with the existence of the problem, too many people burning to much carbon. It would be incredibly dense to believe the 3 million cars China is putting on the road each year, plus the millions of cars the rest of the world is putting on the roads each year , has no effect on the super thin atmosphere we depend on.
The oil gas and coal industries have a huge financial stake in employing scammers, and saboteurs , to discredit the climate changes warnings we are experiencing, so they can continue on business as usual.
They are required by law to ignore long term economics, and realities , for short term overnight share values.
Carbon capture credits are issued to those sequestering carbon or owning biological events which accomplish that purpose. Those who spew carbon into the atmosphere buy carbon credits to be excused from pollution taxes and pass the cost onto consumers in terms of higher prices.
The schemes for pumping carbon into holes in the ground and receiving carbon credits for doing so are arrogantly ignorant. Plants are the way to go, not petrochemical plants, trees and other plants. Increase the biological health of the environment and sequester carbon at the same time.
Corporate entities are repeat offenders. They own the governments. They have the governments put laws in place which foster their schemes for increasing their wealth. Carbon capture is one of those schemes.
Tim Ball exposes the real meaning of climategate.
Sure looks like climate change to me.
Over 95% of the climate scientists around the world, believe climate change is happening due to human acvtivity, the rest are on the payrolls of the corporate world, to sucker the climate change denier gullibles into playing their tune.
Droughts, floods and weather extremes, resulting from climate change, hits the poorest people the hardest. .