Here’s a collection of excerpts and links from the UK. The ones at the very end are quite telling. h/t to Benny Peiser of the GWPF for their newsletter. – Anthony
MPs Slam ‘Secretive’ Climategate Probes
Two inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive. MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have now concluded that both probes into the scandal had failed to “fully investigate” claims that scientists had deleted embarrassing emails. –John Ingham, Daily Express, 25 January 2011
…
Graham Stringer, a Labour MP on the Committee, said there are questions over how the scientists chose the figures they used to back up the case for global warming. He said the ‘missing email’ may refer to how researchers tried to further influence how their science is accepted by the scientific community. He said both reports had failed to answer these questions. “It is not a whitewash, it is the establishment looking after their own. They are not looking hard enough at what went wrong.” — Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 25 January 2011
…
The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.—Graham Stringer, MP, Member of the Science and Technology Committee, 17 January 2011
Mr Stringer is saying what many critical observers think. The inquiries were inept, biased and have not closed this affair. The MPs’ report says we should move on but you cannot if you have unfinished business.—Benny Peiser, Daily Express, 25 January 2011
…
“We find it unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from the vice-chancellor [of UEA] that the emails still exist,” the committee says.
The Russell panel was also remiss for not holding its evidence sessions in public and for allowing UEA to read its report before it was published – a move that left the inquiry open to allegations that it was not sufficiently independent.
The committee calls on researchers to release “sufficient detail of computer programs, specific methodology or techniques used” to allow others to check their analysis of data. This will “help guard against not only scientific fraud but also the spread of misinformation and unsustainable allegations”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office should also release “clear guidance” on how FoI legislation should be applied to scientific research by the start of the next academic year.
But the committee endorses the UEA reports’ “clear and sensible” recommendations. “It is time to make the changes and improvements recommended and, with greater openness and transparency, move on,” the committee concludes. Paul Jump, Times Higher Education, 25 January 2011
…
How Two Tory MPs Saved CRU
In the formal minutes that appear at the end of the SciTech report, it is possible to read a paragraph that was proposed as an amendment by Graham Stringer. This is important:
“There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened.
The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel.
No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most [serious] allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”
This was voted down by the Tories Stephen Mosley and Stephen Metcalfe and the Labour MP, Gregg McClymont.
In other news:
Totally Uncool: Young Britons Least Concerned About Global Warming –
The survey revealed that young people were least concerned about climate change which came last in the average rating of issues, with one in four rating it as the “least important” and 7.1% saying it was the most important issue for them. Only 12% of all respondents believed they had been “adversely affected” by climate change in 2010.
Peter Sissons: ‘The BBC Has Completely Lost It’ –
The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons… and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent.
This attitude was underlined a year later in another statement: ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.’ Those scientists outside the ‘consensus’ waited in vain for the phone to ring.
It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.
Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists.
Yet the cream of the BBC’s inquisitors during my time there never laid a glove on those who repeated the mantra that ‘the science is settled’. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.
Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre.
His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its environment correspondents downplayed its significance.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re: the Polar bear on Thames picture,I saw that I thought: “I’d heard it had been
cod in England but this is ridiculous..” The real reason even more…
“COLD” darn it….
In the words of that old song, I can’t get no satisfaction. Well, not from the 3 squeaky clean CRU ‘enquiries’ anyway. It was inevitable that global warming propagandists would seize on this to draw a line under climategate, which they did with gusto. Now, as many sceptics have been saying all along, the enquiries did nothing to address the serious allegations, contenting themselves to tiptoe around the issues and reinvent their scope. Now the truth is beginning to dawn on some influential people, I look forward to at long last, getting some ‘satisfaction.’
The free lunch doesn’t last forever, the masses will eventually concur-at first with silence, a raised eyebrow, maybe pushing away that glass of kool aid- that the king has no clothes on. Every gravy train comes to a stop eventually. What’s ironic is that this hoax would have gone on so much longer if these shucksters didn’t act like five-year-olds every time somebody attempted to take their lollypop out of their mouths.
Peter Sissons has great respect. His views on the BBC are mind-blowing. But we all knew how biased the Grauniad-reading BBC is.
It is pleasing, however, that following the lifting of the embargo on the report of the Science and Technology group, that the msm is reporting it somewhat more readilythan they did the initial Climategate email release.
Douglas DC:
Yeh, no cod left in England. Fished them out years back.
Regarding the BBC. Living in Blighty, I can attest that the BBC coverage of climate change is highly partisan (they are accused of being infested with lefty liberals, not sure if there is a connection). I don’t know what to think about AGW, but I am sure I can’t trust the BBC to find the truth.
If I had a pound for every time a reporter had said something along the lines of “this is just the sort of extreme event we would expect under climate change” I’d have… well, at least a tenner.
They accept it without thinking. It might be true. I don’t know. But I expect a higher class of investigation from the organisation all brits pay for.
Now is the time to
1.Make a complaint to the BBC regarding the bias (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/) … no not later now!
2. Write to your MP … nothing fancy … just write (http://www.parliament.uk/about/contacting/mp/)
3. Having written to the BBC and MP, sit back with a glass of scot’s whisky and wait for the fun!
Stringer: “No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, …”
Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.
Stringer: “…and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed.”
They were investigating the e-mails, not surveying the ‘skeptical’ blog-sphere.
When it comes down to it, the ‘skeptics’ still have not found evidence of wrong doing and the world’s climate and oceans continue to change. Maybe you can send FOIA’s to the ice caps and coral reefs – wait, they don’t use e-mail.
Wasn’t there a story that the BBC was investing its pension funds in climate change related businesses or something? I don’t know if it was just a rumour or whether it had been researched properly.
Hold them to the fire, boys! Keep up the good work!
Mike says:
“Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel [sic] to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.”
Um, Mike, you would include critics if you wanted the truth.
And your ridiculous claim that there was no evidence of wrongdoing in the emails is easily refuted. Click on the “Climategate” tab. Pretend you’re an IRS agent.
Will Acton, Davies, and Jones resign in their disgrace?
Stefan, you are correct.
Mike says:
…..”Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.”………
However Mike, I suppose its perfectly fair to have it chaired by Lord Oxburgh, as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable such fine gentlemen would not allow grubby finance to influence them one jot.
Can you please, please, please also add a link to the following:
Tradeable Energy Quotas
^ Sorry to keep mentioning it. However, this is as far as I’m concerned, the most important story for the UK of the month, but it is getting almost no coverage (the only mention I’ve seen is in the Daily Express, and most people would just dismiss it as a result).
I can’t overstate the seriousness of the fact that a parliamentary committee is considering energy rationing as a viable policy.
[Reply: This request should go in Tips & Notes. ~dbs, mod.]
“Heated Climate Change Politics in the UK”
That is precisely it.
UK-based media and blogs are having convulsions. The competing sides act triumphant and demoralised in succession. Even the otherwise most reserved good Bishop of the Hill is coming down hard on the disruption in the comments.
Reports from the combat zone strongly suggests that when the dust settles CAGW skeptics will emerge victorious.
Here is the link to the notes of Prof Kelly (CRU ‘review’), which Graham stringer submitted to the HoCSTC:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/444/444vw11.htm
Prof Kelly notes his various – and imho very serious – concerns about the science, which, as all know, weren’t addressed. I found this one of great interest:
“(i) I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of “computer” experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real “real data” might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.”
No wonder the CRU Whitewash Committee was more concerned about the personal honesty of the CRU scientists rather than dealing with their science …
(His other notes in that link are also well worth reading)
At what point does some prosecutor dust off the British laws regarding stock manipulation?
What a great set of links. Kudos to MP Stringer and Mr Sissons!
Mike says:
…..”Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel [sic] to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.”………
And of course, the panel get to choose who’s ‘hostile.’ After Steve McIntyre filed an FOI request, Jones proudly crowed in one of his emails, how after a couple of hours he convinced the FOI administrator ‘what type of person we are dealing with.’ Yeah Mike – can’t have ‘hostiles’ like Steve McIntyre upsetting the apple card.
That polar bear riding an ice flow on the Thames, is that not proof of global cooling. I mean an image like that was used to show warming in the Arctic.
Mike are you new to the debate?
I was quite annoyed at yesterday’s Horizon, writing a letter to the BBC as a consequence (not the kind of thing I generally do). I’m sure I’m not alone in having this vague sense of irritation today, likely reflected in the comments I’m making at various favourite hang-outs. Judith Curry’s do-gooding is also becoming somewhat annoying. The two sides don’t need counselling; one side needs to just stop making stuff up.
Mike Haseler:- Complaint to BBC re. Horizon’s scandalous attack on cAGW dissenters, lack of scientific content and extraordinary bias already sent, although how much good it will do is a moot point. I demanded a similar programme presented by a well respected scientist who has an open mind and will look at the facts.
Paul Nurse has further demeaned the Nobel Prize and he clearly has not made any attempt himself to ‘research’ the subject. He will be very red-faced in the years to come.
Graham Stringer should be congratulated for his attempt to open this can of worms. I really hoped Nurse as the new president of the Royal Society would bring some reason and debate to the climate question but he is even worse, if possible, than Martin Rees.
Mike – you say:-
January 25, 2011 at 9:49 am
Stringer: “No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, …”
Um, if you want an independent panel you would not include people hostel to the CRU, or who were too close to the CRU.
SO WHY WERE THE “INVESTIGATORS” SELECTED THAT HAD SUCH CLOSE LINKS ?
Stringer: “…and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed.”
They were investigating the e-mails, not surveying the ‘skeptical’ blog-sphere.
NO – THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING THE MANIPULATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE EMAILS – A CASE PROVED INCIDENTLY.
When it comes down to it, the ‘skeptics’ still have not found evidence of wrong doing and the world’s climate and oceans continue to change.
YES THEY DID FIND CLEAR EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING REGARDS THE IGNORING OF VALID FoI REQUESTS – IN FACT THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IDENTIFIED THIS BREACH BUT THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THE LAW IN THE UK IS WRITTEN WITH A 6 MONTH MORETORIUM ON FoI REQUESTS SUCH THAT THE UoEA/CRU COULD IGNORE THE VALID REQUESTS AND SO BRAKE THE LAW BUT THEY COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED IF THEY IGNORED THE REQUEST FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS!
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER HAS CALLED FOR THE LAW TO BE CHANGED.
Maybe you can send FOIA’s to the ice caps and coral reefs – wait, they don’t use e-mail.
THEY COULD JUST WAIT 6 MONTHS WITH FINGERS IN EARS OR OTHER SUITABLE SENSORY ORGAN WHILST SINGING “LA LA LA LA LA LA”
THAT WOULD WORK FOR A WHILE. – BUT NOT FOR LONG – ACCEPT IT – THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE – THE WARMISTS HAVE LOST ALL CONTROL AND WHAT LITTLE CREDIBILITY THEY HAD LEFT.