The Muir Russell CRU Apologia is out

NOTE: Updates added, refresh for latest.

The Muir Russell Report is out. Read here in PDF. Unfortunately Russell is another apologist who doesn’t ask relevant questions of both sides, only one side. Even BBC now thinks the CRU wears a halo:

click for full screencap

Compare that to:

CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones’s response of 21/02/2005 to Warwick Hughes’s request for Jones’s raw climate data:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years 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.

Here’s some comments around the web, link to the report follows:

Steve McIntyre:

I guess the main question coming out of the Muir Russell report is when is he going to be appointed to the House of Lords and his choice of appelation. Lord Muir of Holyrood?

They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh.

The issue here is whether Wahl and Briffa violated IPCC rules. Asking Overpeck about this is not very helpful since Overpeck is hardly impartial. Muir Russell had to examine what Wahl and Briffa actually did and then examine the conduct against actual IPCC rules, not after-the-fact opinions by parties to the conduct.

The findings of the Fred Pearce Inquiry on this point stand:

These back channel communications between the paper’s authors [Wahl] and IPCC authors [Briffa], including early versions of the paper, seemed a direct subversion of the spirit of openness intended when the IPCC decided to put its internal reviews online.

More from Steve:

Muir Russell said that it wasn’t the scientists weren’t to blame for defamatory language in emails, e.g. calling people “frauds”, “fraudit”, “bozos”, “morons” and so on. It was Microsoft’s fault.

They asked:

Indeed, some submissions have characterised them as ‗unprofessional‘, or as evidence of CRU‘s contribution to a ‗poisoned atmosphere‘ in climate science.

Muir Russell blamed email itself for the language:

14. Finding: The extreme modes of expression used in many e-mails are characteristic of the medium. Crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.

They observe:

Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.

But defamatory language by CRU scientists in emails is still defamatory language. That the scientists wouldn’t use such language face-to-face with the targets of their abuse is no justification. Ask Tiger Woods about email.

=============================

UPDATE from Anthony:

Yes, I’m sure Sir Muir didn’t think this was unprofessional…nooo. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but I doubt Sir Muir ever looked at this one:

From: “thomas.c.peterson” To: Phil Jones Subject: [Fwd: Marooned?] Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:10:02 -0500

Hi, Phil,

I thought you might enjoy the forwarded picture and related commentary below.

I read some of the USHCN/GISS/CRU brouhaha on web site you sent us. It is both interesting and sad. It reminds me of a talk that Fred Singer gave in which he impugned the climate record by saying he didn’t know how different parts were put together. During the question part, Bob Livzey said, if you don’t know how it is done you should read the papers that describe it in detail. So many of the comments on that web page could be completely addressed by pointing people to different papers. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.

Warm regards,

Tom

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445567a.html

Nature 445, 567 (8 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/445567a

Editorial

“The IPCC report has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the sceptics’ feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous.”

– Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\marooned.jpg”

Here’s NCDC Tom Peterson’s (GHCN lead investigator) cartoon diddle:

I think NCDC should figure out how much public funded time Peterson spent on this and dock his pay.

=============================

Roger Pielke Jr.

The notion that IPCC reports are supposed to present a selective view of climate science, representing the judgments of a select group of experts is in fact contrary to the mission of the IPCC.

The Muir Russell mischaracterization of the IPCC becomes relevant in the report when it uses the characterization as a criterion for evaluating the efforts revealed in the emails to minimize or exclude certain perspectives. For instance, the Muir Russell report explains with respect to one alleged instance of exclusion of peer reviewed literature from IPCC drafts that (p. 76):

Those within the [IPCC] writing team took one view, and a group outside it took another. It is not in our remit to comment on the rights and wrongs of this debate, but those within the team had been entrusted with the responsibility of forming a view, and that is what they did.

This speaks directly to problems of the IPCC, revealed to some degree by the emails, but of much broader concern. The IPCC is supposed to “identify disparate views” not hide them from view or take the side held by the author team. Had the Muir Russell review actually taken an accurate view of the IPCC, it is likely that its judgment about the appropriateness of the behaviors revealed by the emails would be considerably different.The Register/Orlowski:

Russell was appointed by the institution to investigate an archive of source code and emails that leaked onto the internet last November. The source code is not addressed at all. His report suggests that the problems were of the academics’ own making, stating that they were “united in defence against criticism”. Yet the enquiry found that despite emails promising to “redefine” the peer review publication process, and put pressure on journal editors, staff were not guilty of subverting the IPCC process, and their “rigour” and “honesty” were beyond question.

The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU Team – as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons Select Committee on science. If the academics had used bats’ wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn’t a matter for any of the panels to judge. And this is undoubtedly a shortcoming. The voter is entitled to see the evidence and understand the arguments that may answer the question: “Is this climate thing anything to worry about?”

===================================================

UPDATE:

Fred Pearce at the Guardian:

In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review. And it investigated only two instances where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions as IPCC authors to sideline criticism. On the issue of peer review and the IPCC, it found that “the allegations cannot be upheld”, but made clear this was partly because the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was “team responsibility”.

The report is far from being a whitewash. And nor does it justify the claim of university vice-chancellor Sir Edward Action that it is a “complete exoneration”. In particular it backs critics who see in the emails a widespread effort to suppress public knowledge about their activities and to sideline bloggers who want to access their data and do their own analysis.

Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]”. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

===========================================

UPDATE:

The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”? – Anthony Watts

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Patrik

I never use defamatory language in e-mails.
Except when I mean it.
And then I mean it.
Does this report state that people in general use defamatory language in e-mails even when they don’t mean it?
Is there any peer-reviewed science to support that statement?

pat

Backfill and sand bagging.

James Sexton

It’s a wonder that there is any white paint left on the shelves to purchase.

PJB

Well, I for one am totally satisfied.
What I understood from all of the e-mails that I read was mistaken and taken out of context. I am not able to comprehend the true nature of the intention of the authors based on their statements and actions.
Where is the line for the little pills, please?

pat

Arctic chills down
“The Arctic shows no signs of warming, according to the latest data from the Danish Meteorological Institute’s Centre for Ocean and Ice. Last month, in fact, virtually every single day saw temperatures below the mean experienced over the last half-century. The Danish data – taken daily – casts doubt on climate models that had predicted a steady warming of the Arctic.”
Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/06/lawrence-solomon-arctic-chills-down/#ixzz0t6ohXmqI

Baa Humbug

So none of these panels/reviews want to examine the science?
Are they worried about what they may find?

Whitewash
[quote]
According to Dr David Viner 2000, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”.
[Endquote]
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
That statement has the same truthfulness as the findings of this report

Mike McMillan

So East Anglia University has examined itself and found itself to be without fault. Our confidence is restored.
“Meanwhile Professor Phil Jones, the former CRU director at the centre of many of the allegations, has taken up the new post of director of research within the unit.”
Glad to see at least somebody can find a new job these days.

fez

The only tool left to keep us free is the Internet. And there are serious efforts to take it down and replace it with a completely controlled version.
This latest whitewash is just one more reason to do everything we can to exert our liberty of free speech by keeping the ‘net a true peoples network.

George E. Smith

In addition to this lack of open review of all of the issues from both sides; there is the issue of the release of these e-mails and other data itself.
We still see articles about the THEFT of these materials.
So WHO was it who STOLE these files ? And if you haven’t identified just WHO that was; then please QUIT CLAIMING THEY WERE STOLEN.
It is far more likely that someone inside the CRU assembled that FOIA2009 file, and placed it where it could be seen by anyone.
This outfit claims to have the longest documented climate data history; yet somebody from outsidecould dig around inside that huge data base, and find just those incriminating materials.
And they expect us to believe the files were stolen; rather than a whistleblower incident.

wws

as someone else said recently, we are in the “Battle of the Bulge” stage of this war. The forces of Warmism know that they are on their last legs so they are throwing every political and journalistic asset they have into one final attempt to thwart the tide flowing against them. This is a no-holds barred fight – Smithsonian was enlisted to hand over it’s 40th anniversary issue to the cause (a magazine I promptly threw into the trash and will cancel accordingly) Blacklists are being prepared to throw out the heretics – these are all signs of a failing orthodoxy desperately striving to hang onto power and position.
But this doesn’t matter, because all we have to do is hold our positions until November. The real prize in this fight is whether or not the US is going to pass a vast climate control bill – no US bill, and any remaining support for this idea worldwide collapses once and for all. There are only about 30 effective days left in this session, and Sen. Byrd’s death probably made a climate change bill impossible to pass in the short time remaining. And once this Congress expires, Waxman-Markey expires and we get to start a brand new session with a far more conservative, anti-warmist House.
The wamists may win a few tactical battles this summer, but they’re still going to lose the war.

So government people cover up for government scientists trying to scam the public out of tax money.
What’s odd about that?

John Whitman

The Muir Russell Report unfortunately meets most of the skeptic’ expectations.
We expected there would be no significant wrongful CRU findings.
Still, reading the actual words of the report is upsetting, even when they were generally anticipated.
John

FrankSW

The more whitewash the better it will be for the planet, after all they believe it works in the Andes.

wws says: “as someone else said recently, we are in the “Battle of the Bulge” stage of this war. ”
Like every hysteria, the real war the warmists have is with public interest.
The truth is that the public have basically got fed up to the back teeth with the scare.
The real fight they have is to keep up a level of public hysteria that means the public will keep lapping up global warming scare stories, and that sufficient of them will keep writing to the politicians and teachers will keep thinking it a topical subject in which to indoctrinate their kids.
The two problems for the warmists are:
1. The boy who cried wolf too often has to cry: “alien predator … no a hundred alien predators”. The warmist have run every single conceivable scare based on every possible scrap of supportive evidence, and the public have heard it all before and to be frank can’t care a damn whether another lesser spotted goat frog is under threat … cause there still seems to be an awful lot of common lesser spotted goat frogs dead on the roads.
2. The more data you have the less spectacular it looks. Anyone can find a short term trend that looks like it is going spectacularly off the scale. But few can find a trend that continues to go off the page as more and more data become available. Technically known as improving signal to noise, the longer we have measurements, the less noise can falsely suggest a dramatic trend.
Unfortunately for the warmists , in the early days it was simple to trawl the population statistics of animal species or rates of tree deaths etc. etc. and sooner or later one could be found with a dramatic (noise induced) trend that could be blamed on mankind. But the more data you have, the more the noise averages out, and there is a rapid decline in the hysteria generating trends they need to keep the scare alive.
In short they need to keep public interest by finding bigger and bigger “wolves” to scare us with … just at the time the data is getting more and more boring.

latitude

“Climate Unit did not hide data”
I guess in the broadest sense they didn’t…
They denied Freedom of Information requests, claimed they lost all of their old data, and totally made up the data they presented…….
It’s hard to say someone hid something, when they claim they lost it and making it up is not the same as hiding it.
I notice that no one asked them if they lied.

So the CAGW priests examined the dogma espoused by the other CAGW Priests and found it to be well within the IPCC Papal guidelines as sent down from on high by Pope Pachauri and the NASA Cardinals.

Please pass the Kap ‘n Trade KoolAid …

I found the report’s effort to demonstrate that creating a temperature reconstruction was so simple that a caveman could do it fascinating. Two days to write a few hundred lines of code to process publicly accessible station data… of course we are advised not to draw any scientific conclusions but the results are remarkably similar to CRU’s, demonstrating that they couldn’t have done anything wrong…..

TomRude

The Muir Russell CRU Apologia is out:
Except that nobody believes them anymore…

Xi Chin

The problem is that most people just read the BBC headline. They won’t read the emails. If they do read them, they will read a couple of them. They will then be told that those had been “cherry picked”… then they will put Eastenders on, or the football, and that will be that.
Fact is, as a society we no longer deserve freedom. We are not hungry for it. We no longer care about truth, or details. We are brain dead. The best thing that can happen to humanity is a brutal alien invasion to fight against.

Xi Chin

PS I am not calling for a brutal alien invasion in case there are any brutal aliens reading this. Just saying that… well okay, perhaps I should not write stuff after watching battlestar galactica.

Peter Plail

I understood that the contravention of the FOI act by the CRU had already been deemed illegal but because of the lapse of over 6 months, no charges could be brought. One would have expected a more concerned comment from the review.
And whatever happened to the police investigation into the “theft” of the e-mails? Weren’t there a lot of police specialists working on it? Perhaps thay have come up with an answer that is unpalatable to the powers that be.

Regg

You guys lost your cause. Just admit it.
You’ve been proven wrong. Swallow the worm. Now will anyone of you publish something to back any of your claims. Stop complaining about the others and do your own homework. Just proove your cast – that’s the same thing you’re asking from the other side. Well the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling. I see very valuable skeptics theory, but i don’t see publications of them. And don’t come with the plot theory about publications being blocked – that’s not true. And please come with a publication that will not contained fixed data as we’ve seen last year. It would just be another blow for the skeptics camp.
To Pat : if it’s so darn cold in the Arctic (and getting even cooler), than how in the world does the ice makes it to melt this year ? Who are you trying to convince when the data is showing a melting conditions, god it even rained last week on the north pole.

Janice The American Elder

PJB says: “Well, I for one am totally satisfied. Where is the line for the little pills, please?”
Remember, take the blue pill, not the red pill.

Grant Hillemeyer

“14. Finding: The extreme modes of expression used in many e-mails are characteristic of the medium. Crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.
They observe:
Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.”
They wrote these emails thinking that they would not be open to public scrutiny. What are we to believe, that they exaggerated and lied to each other in private but publicly only dispensed the truth? Many years ago I would read the Pravda press releases because they were so blatantly false and nonsensical they were amusing. I thought that our culture would never stoop to these kinds of statements that insult their citizen’s intelligence, but we have now for many years. Well, they can write this stuff with a straight face but let me assure you my reaction is quite different. They can pretend to tell the truth and I’ll pretend to believe them.
So someone wants to check your data. Imagine that. Thank God for Anthony and all of you people who contribute your training, energy and tenacity to this debate, and of course the internet. It’s getting harder and harder for people who have these kinds of powers to pull the wool over our eyes.

Paul Martin

Whitewash should only be used on Stevenson Screens.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

All those who accept the Muir Russel report as vindication of CRU and believe the criticisms of CRU should stop, step forward.
All those who are not volunteering to be stabbed in the back by a coming global carbon regulating regime that will yield nothing good for them, stay where you are.

They “did not hide data”, but from whom? Of course the report can conclude that if it doesn’t touch what was hidden from the public, but rather concentrate on what was hidden from fellow scientists who didn’t ask too much.

Vorlath

What amazes me is that many news articles reporting on this still use the blanket term “climate change” when they mean “man made climate change”. I’m seeing more and more comments that point out this error all over the Internet when these articles are posted. I’m still seeing news reports that the data was always available. But they don’t talk about how the information specifying WHICH dataset was used was NOT available.
I think they have no choice but to whitewash the whole issue. But it’s self-defeating. Unless they’re more upfront about how they phrase things and actually state what is really going on, the public is going to be even more skeptical as time goes on. Not because of any data, but because of the behaviour of how things are reported. You cannot earn the trust of the public by using weasel phrases.

mojo

Tom Sawyer’s got nuthin’ on these guys.

It’s official!
Downloading files with global read permissions (aka ‘Everybody’ for the Microsoft inclined) from a publicly visible FTP server share is now “theft”.
“Making sh*t up, and then slagging anyone who questions you” is now considered an “acceptable scientific methodology”.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Here’s The Register, a scientifically-oriented UK site on the latest whitewash:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/07/muir_russell_climategate_report/
It quotes this gem from Muir Russell without comment – [Sir Muir Russell even calls for “a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in the team’s work]. It seems like almost the whole of our society has succumbed to touchy-feely politics. Science is incompatible with this approach.

Jimbo

As mentioned in the last couple of days here that this was like a court case with judge, jury, defendant but plaintiff.
BBC
“Climate unit ‘did not hide data’
Climate scientists emerge from third inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised.”

“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt
This was the expected whitewash that it is.

“Inspector Clousea — errrrmmmm — Russell?”
“Yes, Sergeant Beebe?”
“We have the five alleged individuals allegedly involved in the alleged mugging that was alleged to have occurred last night — the alleged perpetrator, the alleged victim, and the three alleged witnesses.”
“No need to waste everyone’s time, Sergeant Beebe. Send everyone home and tell the alleged perpetrator to report to me for questioning in six months.”

Regg says: July 7, 2010 at 10:24 am. “You guys lost your cause. Just admit it.”
Our cause is for an open and honest debate, and so long as you are able to tell us that we are just expressing sour grapes … then we are winning!
As for doing the engineering/science … sure like many others here, I’d be more than happy to set up a rival data gathering unit to the CRU and I’d be more than happy to ensure it had as neutral point of view on the subject by including those like yourself with views that contradict my own.
Except … I personally think the whole subject has been so undermined by the stupid petty politicing of the climategate crowd, that I doubt the public will believe anyone on the climate who says it is warming even if it were a sceptic like me!

dicktater

If internal inquiries are acceptable on their face, why not just let the mafia, street gangs, drug dealers, and corporate and government criminals investigate for themselves any charges that are brought against them? Wouldn’t society benefit from the likelihood of reducing the burden on our courts and a costly prison population?
Reuters via Yahoo “Green” catapults the propaganda:
UK inquiry finds emails do not undermine climate science
http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20100707/wr_nm/us_climate_britain_emails.html

An Inquirer

If you go fishing for bullheads, you likely will catch bullheads.
If you set up an inquiry to be a whitewash, you likley will get a whitewash.

Keith Battye

Well we can see that “the science” wasn’t looked at along with the code.
This reminds me of the Bloody Sunday investigations which finally arrived at the truth only 32 years later .
Like the people of Derry we , the skeptics, will have the truth eventually. Until then we need to call these swervers out at every turn.

Solomon Green

Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher, when interviewed on the BBC News at One o’clock today pointed out that, despite his repeated requests,
(1) the Muir Russell hearings were held in secret, without any public access, and
(2) no known sceptic was permitted (let alone invited) to give evidence.
Under those circumstances the only wonder is that Russell did manage to come up with some criticisms of CRU, albeit mild.
Starting with the Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr. Kelly, Labour Prime Ministers and their acolytes have invariably managed to appoint those who can be relied upon to
bring in the report that is required and not the one that might emerge from the hearings. Those who watched the Hutton Inquiry were amazed that the Hutton Report relied so little on the evidence that had emerged during the Inquiry.

hunter

‘False but accurate’ is the best that can be said for climate science. And for the so-called reviews,
I have never heard of anyone calling a review credible that refused to analyze the claims and allegations against what is being reviewed. Except in climate science.
Imagine a civil case where the defendant gets to not only pick the judge and jury, but also gets to exclude the plaintiff.
The decision of the AGW community in choosing to avoid any actual reviews of climate science issues demonstrates painfully and clearly the lack of science at heart of this social movement.

Regg: July 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
Well the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling. I see very valuable skeptics theory, but i don’t see publications of them.
Don’t get out much, do you?
To Pat : if it’s so darn cold in the Arctic (and getting even cooler), than how in the world does the ice makes it to melt this year ? Who are you trying to convince when the data is showing a melting conditions, god it even rained last week on the north pole.
The Arctic does have a summer, you know — this happens to be it. As for rain on the North Pole, what’s so odd about that? You can have below-freezing surface temperatures in a cold front inversion and you stand a good chance of getting rained on for about five minutes– it’s fairly common in the US Middle Atlantic states in December.

Barry Sheridan

The Muir Russell Report, or more properly whitewash, was entirely predictable from the moment its membership was announced. That this farce of an investigative body refused to make any effort at even handedness only adds to the shameful list that catalogues the retreat from reason in all areas of debate in Britain. It is profoundly disappointing!

TerrySkinner

I think this is really, really funny. Now let us assume that somebody of average intelligence was asked to report on this. Let us assume further that he is a believer and he doesn’t want to rock the AGW boat. How does he word it? Well what he does is to produce a report with plenty of criticisms of the indefensible while not thrusting a knife into anything vital. I am sure that would not be difficult.
But no, what we have is the beaurocratic mind at work. We have seen this again and again around the world. These are the sort of people who don’t realise that when an election comes out at 99.9% in favour of anything or anybody we all know it is a bogus sham. They never get it that 55.5% in favour and 43.5% against simply looks a lot more genuine.
So it is with whitewash. You have to be a painter, and not a particularly skilled one at that to get something that looks half plausible. But no, that risks being drummed out of the club. Everything has to be given great big dawbs of white paint, nothing else will do.

I might add to Bill Tuttle’s points the fact that melting ice releases heat, which rises. Rain at the poles is not at all unusual in the middle of the Summer season.

Regg says: July 7, 2010 at 10:24 am
Stop complaining about the others and do your own homework. Just prove your cast – that’s the same thing you’re asking from the other side. Well the best way to play that game is to play the same game and publish your work and findings – the blog sphere is just a place for yelling.
Regg, whilst you may think this is a justifiable criticism, the problem as Lord Monkton told me is that “there’s just no money in being a sceptic”. I personally would love to have the time resources and institutional backing to formally present the many concerns I have over global warming. But to be frank I’ve wasted enough of my own time and money on the few publications I have done that I really can’t justify to my own family doing anything more than the odd post here.
But why should I have to prove global warming wrong by formal publication? The basis of science is simple: “scientists must prove they are right … it is not up to the sceptic to prove them wrong”.
It is not up to me to prove what created the apparent small increase in global temperatures last year – I don’t have the time money or to be frank the inclination to want to waste my time on such a fruitless exercise. However, I do have the time, education and experience to know for certain that the case for manmade global warming at the level suggested is entirely without proper scientific foundation.

XmetUK

honesty, noun, the state of being honest
honest, adjective, truthful; full of honour; honourable; just; fair-dealing; upright, upstanding; the opposite of thieving; free from fraud or trickery; candid, frank; ingenuous; unpretentious… The Chambers Dictionary 10th Edition.
I guess I will have to write to Messrs Chambers and tell them that their definition of honesty is wide of the mark. Perhaps I could point them at Sir Muir Russell’s report for inspiration?

Mike

George E. Smith says: July 7, 2010 at 9:37 am “We still see articles about the THEFT of these materials. So WHO was it who STOLE these files ? And if you haven’t identified just WHO that was; then please QUIT CLAIMING THEY WERE STOLEN.”
Theft is theft even if it was an inside job.

Baa Humbug says: July 7, 2010 at 9:24 am “So none of these panels/reviews want to examine the science?”
The NAS did this already. See: http://americasclimatechoices.org/

Kate

This is from the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7876999/Climategate-professor-gets-his-job-back.html
“Climategate” professor gets his job back
Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the “climategate scandal”, is to be reinstated in his role at the University of East Anglia after being cleared of dishonesty by a major review.
…All I can say to that is:
1.) I expected and predicted this was exactly what would happen.
2.) Nobody believes a word he says anymore, anyway, so putting him back in the CRU will negate all their future work, all of which (past and present) now becomes worthless.
3.) This brings science itself, and everyone involved in this shameful fraud into disrepute. Until someone is brought to book over this and suffers some form of punishment for it, climate scientists are going to be ignored by the public and derided by their peers.

John Carter

We all knew from the start that no enquiry would be critical of the researchers carrying out their distorted science.
It’s another very sad day for the honour of the once great scientific establishment and must, for diligent and honourable scientists, be another day of great shame.
The one consolation is that the truth cannot be constrained for ever and the continuing failure of the CAGW models to accurately predict the climate into the future will prove that the science from climate research has been corrupt and shoddy.
The culprits have a temporary respite, but they will be brought to book eventually.