Third Climategate report ‘imminent’ – expect a shortage of whitewash in stores this weekend

From the Telegraph

By Gerald Warner

If you were planning to do a spot of DIY over the weekend you may encounter a problem – an acute shortage of whitewash in your local store, as it may have been appropriated for more urgent purposes. The estimable Bishop Hill is reporting he has heard on the grapevine that the publication of the review into the Climategate emails conducted by Sir Muir Russell is “imminent”. The prospect seems to have provoked an acute absence of hysterical excitement.

This is the third investigation into Climategate and the universal expectation is that it will be as much a snow job as the previous two, though those precedents will be hard to beat: not since Tom Sawyer manipulated his friends into whitewashing his aunt’s fence has a team worked harder than the successive establishment figures who have exonerated the Decline Hiders from any culpability.

The Russell review got off to a bad start. Within hours of its launch last February, Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature (the magazine referred to in “Mike’s Nature trick” which also published the Hockey Stick graph), had to resign from the inquiry because of remarks he had made in an interview on Chinese State Radio, in which he said: “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”

Some people took the narrow-minded view that this suggested Campbell had prejudged the issue, so he had to go. Why did Sir Muir Russell think that Campbell was a suitable person to have on the inquiry panel in the first place? A press release claimed of the panel members: “They were selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues of the review.”

Read the rest here.

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “Third Climategate report ‘imminent’ – expect a shortage of whitewash in stores this weekend

  1. All the whitewash in the world cannot change reality, sooner or later reality will catch up with them all. Why on earth do they believe that by using cover ups and snow jobs and whitewashes it will somehow absolve them of responsibility when the true nature of natural climate variation can no longer be denied?
    At some point those who now try to cover up the awful truth will be hung out to dry by the political classes looking for scapegoats and we all know just how expert the political classes have become in finding patsies to take the heat.
    In fact the political classes have almost certainly started to shift their scapegoat patsies into position and it is they who will face ridicule and shame with both the public and the political classes pointing the finger of blame.

  2. Will they disclosed all that data allegedly deleted by Dr.Jones? If it does not appear then all keeps dark, like a cold black body, no matter if this time they used concentrated chlorine instead of whitewash.

  3. “Why did Sir Muir Russell think that Campbell was a suitable person to have on the inquiry panel in the first place?”

    When I’m at a poker table, we call it “stacking the deck”.

  4. Let’s hope that this report produces more than the 15 pages produced by the whitewash specialist and the carbon conflict of interest Lord Oxburgh [chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association]. His report was criticised because of his “close links to businesses that stand to make billions of pounds from low-carbon technology.”

    I expect another whitewash with a special enamel finishing for extra slipperiness. :o)

  5. Here’s a taste of the nonsense that went on with the previous investigation.

    British Due Diligence – Royal Society Style
    Steve Mcintyre – June 10, 2010

    “The claims in the Oxburgh report that the eleven papers were “representative”, were “selected on the advice of the Royal Society” with the UEA then agreeing that they were a “fair sample” are all untrue.”


  6. Has there been any ascertainment of the person or persons responsible for releasing the “FOIA.zip” archive to the ‘Net?

    The endless fraudster noise about Climategate has included griping about how this “hacking incident” was a criminal action, and yet I have not seen much (or anything) about how an outside hacker could have gotten into the C.R.U. computer systems to aggregate the contents of that archive.

    It’d be the equivalent of performing an appendectomy through a keyhole with nothing more than extra-long forceps. The “hack” of all time.

    If the police were able to track down the people who had accomplished this “hacking,” wouldn’t the story be prominent even in the lamestream press?

    And are the chittering root weevils of the Fourth Estate not following up on the “catch-the-hacker” story?

  7. So are we being warned that the review is done by a loyal friend? It has no look at the data, the maths or the science?

  8. Isn’t the normal sign of imminence a bbc report based on what a climate journalist has been told will be in the report, but has not yet had the chance to read? And shouldn’t the release be timed for a Friday – in the best tradition of political whitewashery?

    Perhaps they have been reduced to going for the cover of England being defeated by the USA tomorrow. (Those computer models never lie.)

  9. The fact that this is round #3 of investigation means that all is not well in the reputation dept.
    Significant tarnish to the varnish of respectability.
    Not going to get lost credibility back without some sanding.

  10. Then it appears that three inquiries in a row found no evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps they are right, and there was none.

  11. Cassandra King says:
    June 11, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    All the whitewash in the world cannot change reality, sooner or later reality will catch up with them all. Why on earth do they believe that by using cover ups and snow jobs and whitewashes it will somehow absolve them of responsibility when the true nature of natural climate variation can no longer be denied?
    At some point those who now try to cover up the awful truth will be hung out to dry by the political classes looking for scapegoats and we all know just how expert the political classes have become in finding patsies to take the heat.

    Not in the UK. All that will happen is that time will slip and successive inquiries will get nearer and nearer the actual truth, through a series of “palatable” truths. Those that did the earlier whitewashes will have retired/died (why do you think they are always old men?) Eventually the old inquiries will become “Trotsky’d” and will not be mentioned in polite company.

    See the difference between the UK and US enquiries into the White Star line’s “Titanic” for one view on it. Then look at the “Bloody Sunday” enquiries, the “McKee fingerprinting scandal” enquiries, the Iraq War enquires and then Climategate equiries for a chronological/age-based look at the development of a enquiry’s conclusion given an humiliating mistake, and the passage of time/departing of this mortal coil of those involved in said mistake.

    No one will pay a personal price for it. There is an awkward period where the conclusion is known, and the jonny-come-lately’s who believed in the rubbish are still in power and are belittled for their gullibility, then comes the “That was then, this is now and we’re so much smarter” phase, and life – and the spouting of complete rubbish will continue on as usual.

  12. The investigators and those under the exotropic scrutiny, are becoming more and more irrelevant daily. The truth is obvious to anyone without a horse in the race.

  13. Who are we holding at fault here?
    The Scientists ?
    Or the system they were injected into?
    It seems both failed.

  14. Cassandra King says: “…the political classes have almost certainly started to shift their scapegoat patsies into position and it is they who will face ridicule and shame with both the public and the political classes pointing the finger of blame.”

    I suspect you are correct, but there will also be some politicians thrown under the bus, much to their surprise.

  15. Jimbo says:
    June 11, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Let’s hope that this report produces more than the 15 pages produced by the whitewash specialist and the carbon conflict of interest Lord Oxburgh….

    It was only 5 (five) pages long. A4 pages, longer and narrower than US pages. I suggested it be used as the introduction to the second edition of Climategate.

  16. Dan in California says: “An independent review of the relevant emails is given by Dr John Costella on his web site: http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/ The insiders clearly, repeatedly, and in multiple different ways manipulated the system for their own advancement.”

    A lot of Costella’s citations were new to me, and make the perps look even sleazier. They’re “worse than we thought.” Whitewashing these guys is a bad, bad idea; the creosote will soak right back up the brush and tar whoever is wielding it.

  17. I am a very weird sort of animal. I am an optimist by nature. I am also someone who tries to see the other fellows pov, and if not exactly “walk a mile in his shoes”, at least imagine what doing so would be like. But I have various historical research experiences (I’m actually a recognized scholar on the American Civil War, and have been cited by no less than the CIA on the subject. I’m a recognized authority on some other stuff too, but again no appplicability to climate science), and have a political nature that wars internally between my inherent inclination to see the best in humankind while recognizing the fallability of the human condition.

    Thanks for the heads-up. I have alerted my cynic side that “incoming” is imminent, while, apologetically, informing my sunny optimist side to gird its loins for the ordeal.

  18. In a similar related matter, any background hum about the investigation of Mann?

    John

  19. Gneiss says:
    June 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm
    Then it appears that three inquiries in a row found no evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps they are right, and there was none.
    =====
    Kind of like saying “we lost three games in a row because the referees” cheated.

  20. “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”

    These people are sickening.

  21. When you start with a blatant untruth – see below – the final conclusion can only be the same, a fudge, or a whitewash.

    The good people at Real Climate are certain to like the outcome, but most will ignore or reject it. In any event, the conclusions will once again bring the scientific world into disrepute.

    “A press release claimed of the panel members: “They were selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues of the review.”

  22. What is coming out is how prejudiced the magazine editors are towards science and shows who the peers are in the “Peer Review” process.
    So if you bull crap and lie, you’ll get published. This is REALLY showing how corrupted science has moved along to be taken has factual science.

  23. What are the odds that the third inquiry will discredit the first two inquiries?

  24. Wren says:
    June 11, 2010 at 8:06 pm
    Kind of like saying “we lost three games in a row because the referees” cheated.
    No, it’s more like the whitewashers referees all being appointed by the same Team.
    “…no prejudicial interest in climate change”. That’s a laugh. Just who do they think they’re fooling?

  25. An investigation at this point should have nothing to do with whether or not an investigator is right, used best statistical methods, or even followed standard inquiry methods. A research scientist has the right to be dumb ass wrong, use sloppy procedures, and do his or best to convince others that his work is good, based on the data he/she has collected, and the methods used to analyze that data and present it.

    An investigative panel should discover whether or not FOI requests were denied, or data was simply made up. It should also discover whether or not any one person engaged in blackballing others from getting their research published. That last one should be difficult to prove because the peer review process has probably got a little blackballing in it as an intrinsic part of the process.

    For me, I am quite comfortable having the articles in print, in major journals, and etched in time, with all the bells and whistles as well as wrinkles and weaknesses, all firmly attributed to the authors as their best effort to understand the causes of weather pattern variability (aka climate change). Something about opening your mouth and proving something.

  26. Bruce Cobb says:
    June 12, 2010 at 6:22 am
    Wren says:
    June 11, 2010 at 8:06 pm
    Kind of like saying “we lost three games in a row because the referees” cheated.
    No, it’s more like the whitewashers referees all being appointed by the same Team.
    “…no prejudicial interest in climate change”. That’s a laugh. Just who do they think they’re fooling?
    ——-
    Conspiracy theories are entertaining.

  27. I guess they’ll keep on having inquiries until every potentially interested party is bored stiff and says: Yeah, whatever…..

  28. The corruption of ‘climate science’ has spread far and wide. Those with money to make (Al Gore?) are enthusiastic supporters. Eventually Joe public will realise that we have been conned. But what will this do to the rest of science? At some point people will ask not if the conclusion is true but who stands to make money from it and judge it accordingly. The profession of science is being damaged and this is not acceptable. If people no longer believe in science, then they will believe in anything. We cannot afford this in the 21st century. We face massive challenges from climate change, water supply, food supply, energy supply and disease. Science had better get it right or we’re in trouble. We currently have an energy minister in the UK who thinks building windmills will save us from energy shortfall (and nuclear energy is ‘outdated’). Is there not some govt. scientist who can explain the practicalities to him? I despair.

  29. Gneiss says:
    June 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    Then it appears that three inquiries in a row found no evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps they are right, and there was none.

    There’s a fourth due. The inquiry by the UK Information Commisioner’s Office on recommending improvements to the way the University of East Anglia handles FOI requests. Although prosecutions are out of time, these recomendations are a procedural thing, and take as long as they take.

    The ICO has already stated there is prima facia evidence of criminality, so their report on improving that might prove interesting.

  30. Wren says:
    June 12, 2010 at 9:40 am
    Conspiracy theories are entertaining.

    As are straw man arguments.

  31. I suspect that political and self-interest considerations may prohibit the finding of any real fault with those scientists still perceived by many as heroes dedicated to fighting the noble battle to save the beauty of the earth and the wonders of nature from despoliation by ‘big money’ and ‘big oil’ interests. It may be a while before the damage to science caused by quixotic self-styled heroes becomes clear to all.

  32. Gneiss says:
    June 11, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    Then it appears that three inquiries in a row found no evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps they are right, and there was none.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    I strongly suggest you read Assassination of Science Climategate: http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

    No matter what side you are on Climate Scientists acted unethically. and that is putting it mildly.

    The continued white washing of scandals such as climate gate and repeated food poisonings makes it very clear the politicians could careless what their electorate thinks.

  33. RE: Mike Odin: (June 13, 2010 at 5:25 am ) “Yes indeed –all critics and opponents of behemoth corporate cupidity must be absolutely marginalized and belittled–”

    Criticism is one thing, and the advertent or inadvertent group-think manufacture of false science to further that end is something else…

    We may criticize BP and the Obama Administration for not having the foresight to have a process in place for quickly suppressing a deep-ocean well-casing failure, but we may not go and plant *false* evidence to prove that they knew all along that this was likely to happen.

  34. Penn State University’s investigation into Climate Gate and Dr. Michael Mann’s involvement exhonerated Dr. Mann recently and found no wrongdoing. Most of the people with an opinion here never read the out-of-context, patchy emails when they first surfaced. I read a lot of them. They were so fragmented, there was much ado about nothing.

    Because [snip] skeptics jump on the whitewash wagon, insisting on listening to their fave politicians over science/scientists or heaven forbid–government reports, they’re simply being snowed by industry, the same industry that seeks to pollute us to death for profit while stuffing the pockets of said politicians.

    In order to quell the whitewash mantra from [snip] skeptics, Penn State stated: “In order to thoroughly extinguish any lingering doubts about the panel’s findings, school administrators decided to convene a separate Investigatory Committee of Dr. Mann’s faculty peers and distinguished scientists to continue to investigate the allegation that Dr. Mann “engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.”

    After this investigation Dr. Mann was once again exhonerated from any wrongdoing. The panel even went on to say: All of [Dr. Mann’s] awards and recognitions, as well as others not specifically cited here, serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.”

    What’s curious to me is that the hackers got away with breaking the law and no one seems to care who they were, their motivation, if they were hired, how they did it, and where they are now. Rights were violated, but it’s OK? The illegal hackers have yet to be caught, something else that is curious. One would think besides jumping on the scientists for so-called manipulation of data, there would also be equal interest in catching the hackers and uncovering their motivation. Were they paid, how much and by whom for example? But that just hasn’t materialized, hmmmm?

    [snip] skeptics don’t find this strange? Sketchy emails were turned into climate gate. Why would deniers/skeptics even jump on these emails when [snip] skeptics claim climate science is inexact, data is erroneously gathered or misinterpreted, and climate history only goes back so far. Between all of these excuses one would think there was little need for “climategate” to validate deniers/skeptics claims.

    It seems what we really have here are a lot of ostriches , burying their heads in the sand, content that their fave politicians say it’s just a whitewash, no need to worry because man can’t possibly affect the environment, when right in front of us unfolds the greatest obstacle to that thinking, the gulf oil spill. Man most certainly affected a huge portion of the environment and for years to come in one fell swoop of negligence.

    REPLY: Read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709 and tell me if you still support 100% what you just wrote. Don’t skim it, as you accuse us of doing, and lose the D word in future comments – Anthony

Comments are closed.