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
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 ?
Have you posted it? It’s past midnight.
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
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?
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
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)
Anthony it’s 00.01 British Summer Time, which started on Sunday, so you are free to release it now. Let’s get started…..
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.
No, it was a Trick. A subterfuge. A Lie. A deception. Call it what you will.
You can lead a horse to water …
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The key phrase is in the lede of the story at the Irish times.
…”politicians said today.”
Zero credibility.
we are now all Conversos!
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!
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
test
[Your test worked. Next time, please use a thread that’s a month or two old.
Thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
And the data was erroneous because it showed a decline.
Err.. yeah.. we’re not on GMT any more, here in the UK. We sprang forward at the weekend.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.