Can we trust the 'Climategate' inquiry?
Since it set up not one but two supposedly "independent" inquiries into the "Climategate" affair, climate sceptics were intrigued but not entirely surprised to find that almost all their members were committed, even fanatical advocates of global warming, and hence unlikely to be over-critical of the CRU's bizarre record.
Most recently, the sceptics have been particularly intrigued by the background of the man chosen by the university to chair an assessment of the CRU's scientific record. Lord Oxburgh declared on his appointment that he is linked to major wind-farm and renewable-energy companies. He admitted that he advises Climate Change Capital, which manages funds worth $1.5 billion, hoping to cash in on the "opportunities created by the transition to a low-carbon economy", in a world market potentially worth – its website boasts – $45 trilllion,
What Lord Oxburgh kept quiet about, however, is that he is also a director and vice-chairman of a strange little private company few of us had heard of known as Globe International. The name stands for "Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment", and it describes itself as a worldwide network to lobby governments to take more drastic action on climate change.
The international president of this lobbying organisation turns out to be none other than Stephen Byers MP, now best known for his description of himself on last week's Dispatches as "like a cab for hire", happy to take £5,000 a day for using his influence as a lobbyist.
Globe clearly knows how to pick its men. Its UK parliamentary team also includes Elliot Morley MP, Globe's former president, and David Chaytor MP, both of whom now face criminal charges for fraud in connection with their expenses claims, Considering the record of some of his colleagues, it is perhaps not surprising that Lord Oxburgh was not too keen to declare his interest in this odd little outfit when he was appointed to chair an inquiry as to whether the world can rely on the evidence produced by the CRU to support its advocacy for global warming. But I am sure we can all have every confidence as to which way his inquiry's conclusions are likely to point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7530 ... quiry.html
Tässä tri Richard Northin ensikomentti:
The parliamentary science and technology select committee has done its job on the East Anglia CRU "inquiry", finding that, "There was no evidence to challenge the 'scientific consensus' that global warming is induced by human activities."
It was not set up to do that, it was not competent to accomplish such a task, and the timescale afforded would have, in any case, rendered it impossible. But, despite that, the committee has found precisely that. It will be quoted endlessly by the "warmists" – all the rest is detail. And, in due course, that is what all the other CRU inquiries will find.
Thus, the establishment looks after its own. There are far too many with their fingers in the till for it to have been any different.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... erent.html
A.W. Montfordin (Bishop Hill) kommentti:
The report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Climategate is due in a few hours time, and I've just seen what looks like the first news report of the press conference today. The general theme seems to be:
■breaking the FoI laws was naughty
■apart from that please move along because there's nothing to see here.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... ready.html
Tricking the Committee
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/tric ... committee/
‘Climategate’: what a pointless investigation
The aim of the MPs’ investigation was not to uncover the truth, but to defend the moral authority of climate-change alarmism.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/8368/
Lying, cheating, defrauding taxpayer are all OK' announces panel of MPs
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... el-of-mps/
Climategate: reinstating Phil Jones is good news – the CRU brand remains toxic
“Move along now, please… Nothing to see here…” was the predictable burden of Sir Muir Russell’s investigation into Climategate. Are we surprised? Any other conclusion would have made world headlines as a first for the climate change establishment. This is the third Climategate whitewash job and it would be tempting to see it as just as futile as its predecessors. That, however, would be to underrate its value to the sceptic cause, which is considerable.
This is because Russell’s “Not Guilty” verdict has been seized upon as an excuse to reinstate Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia CRU, this time as Director of Research. That is very good news. It spells out to the world that the climate clique looks after its own; that there is no more a culture of accountability and job forfeiture for controversial conduct in AGW circles than there is in parliamentary ones; that it is business as usual for Phil and his merry men. Or, to put it more bluntly, the brand remains toxic.
Apart from Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, there is no name more calculated to provoke cynical smiles in every inhabited quarter of the globe than that of Phil Jones. The dogs in the street in Ulan Bator know that he and his cronies defied FOI requests and asked for e-mails to be deleted and that people only do that if they have something to hide. Every time some UN-compliant government or carbon trading interest group tries to scare the populace witless with scorched-earth predictions of imminent climate disaster and cites research from the East Anglia CRU – of which Phil Jones is Director of Research – it will provoke instant scepticism.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... ins-toxic/
The Climategate Whitewash Continues
Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.
It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise."
Mr. Jones emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, "Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."
The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"
Then there's the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: "On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this."
Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.
But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."
Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.
Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 14140.html
Q: Mr. McIntyre, the Russell Inquiry concluded that no data were manipulated by CRU scientists. Other inquiries have come to the same conclusion. Was the Climategate affair only a storm in a teacup?
A: The Russell inquiry had many problems. For example the inquiry team did not interview any CRU critics.
Q: They did not?
A: No. They did not interview me or any other critics.
Q: Why do you think they did not interview you?
A: It is quite difficult to say. That is a real defect of the process. The inquiry's report only says it is "natural justice" that the CRU-researchers, who are the focus of the investigation, get an opportunity to be heard - in contrast to other actors. However if they had wanted to truly [investigate] this affair, it would have been important to talk to both sides of the dispute. What they did was to give a short, two-week window for submissions. If you were busy or had other things to do in this short time, you would not be able to make a submission.
Q: What were the other problems of the inquiry?
A: For example: Phil Jones, who as former director of the CRU is at the centre of the affair, was interviewed on only one occasion about the main issues, and Muir Russell did not even attend the interview. The majority of the members of the panel did not attend the interview either. It is quite extraordinary to me that the chairman of an inquiry would not attend the only interview with the subject of the inquiry about the issue in question.
Another problem: In terms of the mandate one mission of the Muir Russell inquiry was to look at the unpublished emails on the CRU server. They were said to put things in context. But the inquiry waited four months before even approaching the University of East Anglia in order to look at the other emails. The university then placed conditions on looking at it. The university retained an analyst who did not start work until 14 May, by which time the inquiry was already supposed to have been finished. An analysis would have taken several weeks, and the university said that this would be already too late and so do not bother. So they even failed to begin doing one important aspect of the inquiry they were supposed to do.
The inquiry also contains many errors, even factual errors, about the material of their findings. There are so many errors that it reduces the weight you could place on their conclusions.
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1294 ... ntyre.html
Where do matters now stand? Returning to the five issues raised at the start, we can say that the evidence
points to some clear conclusions.
1. The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports
with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was
concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” Even the Muir Russell panel concurred, as was
fitting, since the evidence was clear. The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend
an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only
discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
2. Phil Jones admitted deleting emails in order to prevent disclosure of information subject to
Freedom of Information laws, and asked his colleagues to do the same. But the inquiries have
largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes. Despite being asked y Parliament to
conclusively resolve this issue, Sir Muir Russell did no attend the interviews with Jones and, as
reported in UK media, his inquiry did not ask Jones if he had deleted emails.
3. The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own
professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in
reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the
scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took
the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their
academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties
in documents prepared for policy makers.
4. The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in
order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons
Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were given gentle admonitions and encouragements to
do somewhat better in the future.
5. The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of
papers, or intimidating journals. These get into subjective, he-said-she-said disputes, and in some
cases the documentation was too sparse. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly
the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile,
corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
The public uproar over the climategate revelations has abated: people cannot stay angry forever. But
public suspicions about what they are being told regarding global warming have not been alleviated.
Thus far four inquiries have failed to put the issues properly to rest. Scientists working on climate issues
should take no comfort from these events. Until a real inquiry is formed that is prepared to tackle the real
questions, hear all the evidence, properly cross-examine witnesses and follow the evidence wherever it
leads, climategate will remain unresolved and the public will continue to look upon climate science with
mistrust and suspicion.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads ... sponse.pdf
http://climateaudit.org/2010/09/08/oxbu ... committee/
Harmless Sky-blogissa on myös hyvä yhteenveto:
Oxburghin valkopesula sai aikanaan paljon julkisuutta valtamediassa ja oikeaoppisissa tiedejulkaisuissa. Nyt kun tutkimusraportin heikko perustaa - josta skeptikot ovat kirjoittaneet ja puhuneet jo pitkään - yhä selvemmin paljastuu, eivät valtamedia ja tiedelehdet - yllätys, yllätys - ole kiinnostuneita ....
Montfordin raportissa todetaan mm. seuraavaa:
none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
none managed to be objective and comprehensive
none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
http://thegwpf.org/climategate/1532-dam ... iries.html