Heads up

Cover page

Just a note to let everyone know that the Parliamentary inquiry into Climategate has produced the final report and that I have an advance copy, which is embargoed until 5:01PM PDT (00:01 GMT).

I’ll be posting it then, be sure to check in.

There are some wins in it, and there are some disappointments too. I’ll also provide links to other analysis and commentary that arises after the embargo lifts.

Layman readers should bear in mind that this report comes from a bunch of policy wonks, so there’s that sort of flavor to it. OTOH, they seem to have done a better than usual job of trying to communicate their findings.

Unfortunately, the inquiry failed to interview key people, such as Steve McIntyre, and for that they deserve an earful IMHO.

In the meantime, Mike Haesler points out in comments that the Irish Times apparently didn’t wait for the embargo to lift:

Climate unit criticised for stonewalling sceptics

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0330/breaking78.html

0 0 votes
Article Rating
61 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
P Walker
March 30, 2010 2:47 pm

Two hours , twenty min. to go . I suspect a qualified exoneration for most of the research coupled with a bit of a chiding for the boys over the FOI thing .

Leon Brozyna
March 30, 2010 2:50 pm

Then I’d best eat my sweet & sour pork now so that I don’t get indigestion when reading it in a couple hours.

geo
March 30, 2010 2:53 pm

It strikes me as very odd to have a government report have an embargo lift date/time on it like it was a video card review or something!
And even if the embargo was to help the British press not get scooped by the American press (which I could imagine the British press lobbying for), you wouldn’t think that expiry time would do them much good!

AlexB
March 30, 2010 2:53 pm

Are you sure this post is a good idea? Will your server cope with the expected influx in traffic?

Mike Haseler
March 30, 2010 2:54 pm

It’s a whitewash
As predicted the Science and Technology committee has come out with the expected whitewash.
Scientists at a leading British climate research centre had a culture of withholding information from global warming sceptics but did not deliberately manipulate data to support their case, politicians said today.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0330/breaking78.html

Dr A Burns
March 30, 2010 2:59 pm

Whitewash as expected.

Dr T G Watkins
March 30, 2010 3:03 pm

I’ve already posted at Bishop Hill. Predicted result but still upsetting.
There was a time, not so long ago, that one had a certain respect for inquiries instigated by the ‘Mother of Parliaments’. How sad.
On a brighter note, the ‘scientific’ inquiry, impartial and fair, will reveal all !

Mark T
March 30, 2010 3:09 pm

“Erroneous data?”
Sigh… yeah, “what we observe and measure is obviously incorrect because it does not fit our theory, which everybody else agrees must be right.”
Mark

Antonio San
March 30, 2010 3:13 pm

As expected. A slap on the wrist…

Methow Ken
March 30, 2010 3:14 pm

Well: Take the wins (however many or few), and do indeed not hesitate to comment on the disappointments.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch on THIS side of the Big Pond:
It will be interesting to see if what emminently deserves a Congressional Inquiry gets one; while the (D)s are still in charge in D.C.
I am of course referring to this, just up on FoxNews:
”NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits.”
Full article at:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
See also good one at Pajamas Media:
”Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted.”
Read it all:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-three-of-the-four-temperature-datasets-now-irrevocably-tainted/
Hats off to Chris Horner at CEI for his FOIA work on this;
and kudos (again) to Joe D’Aleo and Anthony; who are prominently mentioned in the above pieces; and are clearly becoming reliable and recognized ”go-to sources” for technical expertise in this area.
I hear the sound of more dominos falling; faster and faster. . . .
Make it so. . . .

R.S.Brown
March 30, 2010 3:17 pm

Yep.
Whitewash.

kim
March 30, 2010 3:18 pm

T minus 102 minutes and counting.
==============

Tim
March 30, 2010 3:18 pm

Can you tell us if you were given an advance copy due to your position as ‘media’ outlet or did you have to depend on someone leaking it to you?

Denis Hopkins
March 30, 2010 3:21 pm

Looks like they took the CRU interpretations of “hide the decline ” and “trick” at face value. No wonder they conclude the science was not faulty in any sense! I cannot see how the “hide the decline” is a valid comment in the context. If you use tree ring data for hundreds of years and then when it does not suit your purpose yu exchange it for a different temperature measurement then how can you have any faith in what the tree rings tell you for the times when you are happy to use it. Yet that does not undermine their science????
I get a lot of stick from some people at my school where i stick up articles that question AGW. Probably because my school is based in Norwich, UK 🙂 I must say that the Climategate event has made some more willing to question. I fear this will be seen as legitimising the most alarmist claims once again.

NickB.
March 30, 2010 3:23 pm

“Hiding the decline” was not underhanded (according to the Irish Times report)?
RLY?
If that same “technique” was used in medical research people would probably go to jail for it but when it comes to public policy issues impacting trillions of dollars and global living standards it’s OK?
Ridiculous 🙁

March 30, 2010 3:24 pm

If The Irish Times said the truth it would be a waste of my time to read the report – everyone was clear, everything was OK, and the CRU is as clear as crystal, together with its Head – Mr. Jones, who commited rather miner demeanour not wanting to show the data. Eh… another information noise, and not a report in my opinion.
Regards

Capn Jack.
March 30, 2010 3:35 pm

White wash with Embargoe Headline spin.
I wonder what energy rating that washing machine Committee has.

Steve in SC
March 30, 2010 3:39 pm

Anything short of removing funding for CRU and accreditation for UEA is a travesty.

MattN
March 30, 2010 3:46 pm

I expect them to find a whole bunch of stuff, and do absolutely nothing about it.

Paul
March 30, 2010 4:04 pm

Why am I NOT surprised?

Tom in Texas
March 30, 2010 4:04 pm

“Hide the decline” was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded. Similarly, Jones intended “trick” to mean a neat way of handling evidence, rather than anything underhanded.
A neat way to cherry pick data.

maz2
March 30, 2010 4:07 pm

AlGW says, It’s a snowjob.
…-
“Fierce Winter Storm in Scotland Continues”
“Snow continues to pile up and disrupt travel across the mountains of the Northwest and California.”
http://www.accuweather.com/news.asp

JohnQPublic
March 30, 2010 4:08 pm

It sounds like a white wash. Not surprising. Most governments have swallowed the AGW hook, whole for one reason: it justifies tax increases.

P Walker
March 30, 2010 4:10 pm

I see no reason to doubt the Irish Times . Sounds as though Parliament has issued a CYA – after all they’re in enough trouble as it is . Finding that they have been funding bogus science and ruining their country’s economy in the process would not go over well .

INGSOC
March 30, 2010 4:11 pm

Only one hour to go…

George E. Smith
March 30, 2010 4:11 pm

Well I expect they will be handing down indictments naming the thieves who stole all that stuff.
Hey chaps; did you try out any of that commented software that was supposed to do the number on the data when called for to “hide the decline” ? Does that code work well doing that fudging for those guys ?

Z
March 30, 2010 4:12 pm

Have you posted it? It’s past midnight.

ward
March 30, 2010 4:13 pm

the national Post couldn’t get the whitewash to the front page fast enough also.
They did not show quite the same enthusiasm when the wheels were falling off the wagon at CRU, and the various subsequent “gates”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2745259

JDN
March 30, 2010 4:15 pm

It seems the usual.
Has such a committee ever concluded that someone was misrepresenting data? How would they know? What are their standards? Could I suppress unfavorable data, not invite anyone who doesn’t like me to the inquiry, then boldly assert that no data was misused?

Daniel H
March 30, 2010 4:16 pm

James Hoggan of DeSmogBlog has already broken the embargo. He wrote a story in the Puffington Host entitled “Climate Scientist Phil Jones Exonerated by British House of Commons”:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/climate-scientist-phil-jo_b_519298.html
He includes a direct link to the embargoed PDF, here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%20house%20of%20commons%20report.pdf

Sam
March 30, 2010 4:18 pm

Very depressing: we take one step forward and two back.
From my admittedly fairly perfunctory investigation of the Committee’s credentials, I judged that those who might have had the scientific expertise (or even the intelligence + cast of mind) to understand the matter at issue, were all dedicated Warmists and CRU supporters. And those included the Chairman, so the whole exercise was only that: an exercise (in PR)

David S
March 30, 2010 4:18 pm

Anthony it’s 00.01 British Summer Time, which started on Sunday, so you are free to release it now. Let’s get started…..

March 30, 2010 4:19 pm

“Hide the decline” was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded.

But which data were erroneous? The temperature data or the proxy data? If it was the proxy data, how can you rely on the rest of it, and if it was the temperature data, then surely it should be noted as wrong. You can’t have it both ways and expect us to believe anything you say ever again, I’m afraid.

Similarly, Jones intended “trick” to mean a neat way of handling evidence, rather than anything underhanded.

No, it was a Trick. A subterfuge. A Lie. A deception. Call it what you will.
You can lead a horse to water …

Cefte
March 30, 2010 4:25 pm

FWIW, the UK is currently on British Summer Time, which is GMT+1 hour, so it’s now 00.25 here. You should be clear to post the report, if you want to save a few minutes.

geo
March 30, 2010 4:27 pm

If they’ve really called the data stonewalling “reprehensible”, that that is something.
Frankly, I’ve always felt that the absolute best the skeptics could reasonably hope for out of climategate was prying open the data cookie jars so that they wouldn’t have to fight in the future (as they largely have in the past) with one hand tied behind their backs –and that may in fact be in the process of happening.
So I’m really not disappointed by the results, because I wasn’t expecting more.
In my view, those in the skeptic community (certainly not all or most) who keep seeking that one grand grand incident of revelation and the next day we go back to a world without AGWers, have always been kidding themselves.
The war goes on, the battles will continue, the outcome is still in doubt.

Anu
March 30, 2010 4:35 pm

British lawyers and legislators are world class scientists.
When high court judge Mr. Justice Barton reviewed the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2007, he promptly found nine scientific errors in the film. Over tea.
Now we have Parliament itself deciding if Science is being done correctly.
Who better to decide, really ?
MP Graham Stringer figured out dyslexia was a cruel fiction created by the educational establishment to divert blame for illiteracy from their incompetent instruction methods – and this over 3 pints at a Manchester pub. Imagine when he throws himself into a scientific question, like the CRU competency hearings.
Whatever men of his caliber decide, that’s fine by me. British education is the finest in the world – Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, could single-handedly replace the faculty of Dartmouth College.

P Standfort
March 30, 2010 4:38 pm

Anthony, I’m pretty sure that the embargo is until 00.01 BST (British Summer Time) and not GMT (an hour behind). According to the House of Commons site, the report is now published. (We changed the clocks last weekend).
REPLY: GREAT THANKS, they didn’t make that clear. I wasn’t aware, too late now -A

Paul Benkovitz
March 30, 2010 4:46 pm

Just saw this on Slashdot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
I guess some of them are after power.

djb
March 30, 2010 4:53 pm

The key phrase is in the lede of the story at the Irish times.
…”politicians said today.”
Zero credibility.

peter naegele
March 30, 2010 4:56 pm

we are now all Conversos!

pesadilla
March 30, 2010 4:56 pm

I still wonder why Professor Jones contemplated suicide if as this enquiry has established, he did nothing wrong. I cannot believe that the members of this committee have read all the e-mails. How could you possibly miss the conspiratorial content. Must be me!

March 30, 2010 4:58 pm

The report was published at 00.01 BST, not 00.01 GMT – nearly an hour ago.
REPLY: Leave it to government to royally foul things up – no mention of BST whatsoever. -Anthony

wobble
March 30, 2010 4:59 pm

test
[Your test worked. Next time, please use a thread that’s a month or two old.
Thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

wobble
March 30, 2010 5:01 pm

And the data was erroneous because it showed a decline.

Simon H
March 30, 2010 5:01 pm

Err.. yeah.. we’re not on GMT any more, here in the UK. We sprang forward at the weekend.

paullm
March 30, 2010 5:04 pm

Well, it seems, according to the Irish Times, that the UK-HOC has bought into the AGW scam hook, line & sinker!!!!! Bad timing – the gig’s up.
The IPCC has hung itself and the UK-HOC seems hellbent on joining them. Talk about a house of cards. This one is built on a fault line that’s already quakin’.
The Arctic ice is ready to hit recent record hi extent, Nino’s over the hump, and the rest is lining up for AGW’s facing the music. The Big’s want to hit the ground hard – got it.

Keith G
March 30, 2010 5:19 pm

A whitewash cometh.
No doubt, the Committee will not have been able to ignore the FOI refusals and will have duly slapped CRU on the wrists.
But it seems likely that it will choose to side-step the contentious issue of the veracity of the science of AGW as promulgated by CRU. And that will have been due to the way the political battle lines are drawn in the Science and Technology Committee. No-one on the Committee strong enough, and brave enough, (and, possibly, stupid enough) to make a significant stand at present.
Jones et al. will keep their jobs.
Such is the nature of politics.

MattN
March 30, 2010 5:27 pm

I hate it when I’m right:
“The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,” the report said. “We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus.”

Bulldust
March 30, 2010 5:48 pm

Well at least there was one decent finding in the report that I have read so far:
“103. Whether or not CRU liked it, those making FOIA requests were entitled to have their requests dealt with in accordance with the legislation and, if the information sought did not fall within one of the exclusions provided by the FOIA, it should have been disclosed. We have already recommended in paragraph 54 above that in future information, including data and methodology, should be published proactively on the internet wherever possible. However, a culture of withholding information—from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming—appears to have pervaded CRU’s approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable.”
Somehow, by the time this got to the conclusions it was watered down to:
“We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.”
Fron “unacceptable” to “suggesting” that they might consider a change of heart… how weak is that?

Philemon
March 30, 2010 5:58 pm

JohnQPublic (16:08:50) :
“It sounds like a white wash. Not surprising. Most governments have swallowed the AGW hook, whole for one reason: it justifies tax increases.”
No, it doesn’t. It’s a poor phony-baloney excuse, perhaps, in some bureaucrats’ warped little minds, living in their alternate reality, wherein they get blood from turnips. But that is not justification.
Subtle philosophical distinction: justification vs. poor phony-baloney excuse. Not the same thing.

Frank
March 30, 2010 6:08 pm

Lets see folks whether the Committee looked up the definition of ‘trick’
1. a crafty or fraudulent device, expedient, or proceeding; an artifice, stratagem, ruse, or wile. 2. a deceptive or illusory appearance; mere semblance 3. a roguish or mischievous performance; etc etc
Precisely, there is no other interpretation.
‘Hide the Decline’. If that’s not tampering with the data I do not know what is.
‘Discarding erroneous data’ they say – yes data that does not fit their commited notion of continuing rising temperatures I say.

Bones
March 30, 2010 6:18 pm

$15 Trillion – preserved.

rbateman
March 30, 2010 9:00 pm

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if that IARC-JAXA readout hasn’t turned up and plowed into the 2003 line arching down.
03,26,2010,14264688
03,27,2010,14256719
03,28,2010,14299219
03,29,2010,14363438
03,30,2010,14405781
03,26,2003,14771094
03,27,2003,14755781
03,28,2003,14718594
03,29,2003,14647031
03,30,2003,14533906
The Watts effect has got it’s meteorological mojo working again.
It’s ba -a -ack.

March 30, 2010 9:47 pm

Not a very honest report. Quote “But at the same time it is critical to point out that no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since 1850, nor any results based upon it.178”
Compare, in my submission under the Term of Reference — How independent are the other two international data sets? Quote “The answer to this question is not known by any person. The respective collecting parties acquire data in various states of adjustment from various bodies and individuals around the globe, such as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The volume of information is large and the adjustments to it are so frequent that it would be formidable to recreate a day-by-day comparison. There is no doubt that for some periods at some stations all three bodies would report the same result, within the bounds of error. However, prior disclosure of code and adjustment times has not been forthcoming to allow an independent audit.
The data sets cannot be directly compared because some deal only with land temperatures; others include sea. In any case, the error bounds, when calculated with proper formalism, are so large that the data sets would usually agree sensu latissimo. This can be confirmed by separate comparison of temperatures from satellite observations since the early 1980s.”

Wren
March 30, 2010 10:31 pm

ER0ME (16:19:59) :
“Hide the decline” was not an attempt to conceal data but was scientific shorthand for discarding erroneous data, the committee concluded.
But which data were erroneous? The temperature data or the proxy data? If it was the proxy data, how can you rely on the rest of it, and if it was the temperature data, then surely it should be noted as wrong. You can’t have it both ways and expect us to believe anything you say ever again, I’m afraid.
====
Instrumental temperature records are supposed to be more accurate than their proxies. Climate scientist are well aware tree-ring proxies diverged from instrumentally recorded temperatures in the late 20th Century, but they aren’t sure why. Does the divergence mean tree-ring data were never accurate temperature proxies? Maybe. Maybe not.

March 30, 2010 10:35 pm

“Nothing to see here, move along!”
No matter what the official line is, they will have a very tough time getting the genie back into the bottle & convincing the public that climate change is worth worrying about.
All the King’s horses, and all the King’s men, couldn’t put the swindle together again.

LightRain
March 31, 2010 12:06 am

*** INCONCEIVABLE ***

Rhys Jaggar
March 31, 2010 12:35 am

You guys need to realise that our Prime Minister will call a General Election most likely tomorrow.
This was brought out at a time when its guaranteed that noone will be interested for 5 or 6 weeks.
A way to quietly bury the issue, in other words.

March 31, 2010 3:22 am

Ah well I suppose a greywash was to be expected. After all this Parliament voted to destroy 80% of our fire producing capacity to fight “catastrophic global warming” so they were hardly likely to say it was fa scam – instead they seem to have passed the buck to U of EA’s “inquiry” run by a windfarm owner, to confirm the scam.

Henry chance
March 31, 2010 7:49 am

So the CRU is vindicted by members of Parliament?
These same members that cheated on hundreds of millions of pounds for personal spending? We have laws against the pot calling the kettle black. Cheaters should never accuse cheaters.

nolan
March 31, 2010 7:00 pm

Thank you Anthony. Keep at it.
I hope you get the satisfaction of driving the final nail in the coffin someday.
p.s. Sooner rather than later would be nice!lol

%d bloggers like this: