Damning new investigation into Climategate inquiries

Climate Research Unit (CRU) building at UEA

Press release

London, 14 September – The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations.

The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

In particular, the report finds that:

  • none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
  • insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
  • none managed to be objective and comprehensive
  • none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
  • terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
  • none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.

Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said:

“The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims.”

“All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place,” Andrew Montford warned.

Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said:

“The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence.”

“The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford’s report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified.”

“Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need,” Lord Turnbull said.

Lord Turnbull also called on the Government to look at the serious criticisms of the IPCC made in the recent InterAcademy Council Report. He said: “The Government should demand that the fundamental reforms recommended by the IAC in the practice, governance and leadership of the IPCC are implemented immediately for its Fifth Assessment.”

Notes to editors:

A full copy of the report (The Climategate Inquiries) can be downloaded from 11am here:

About the author

Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008), a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He writes a blog specialising in climate change issues at http://www.bishop-hill.net and has made many media appearances discussing global warming from a sceptic perspective.

Lord Turnbull

Andrew Turnbull was Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords and a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

GWPF Reports

Views expressed in the publications of the Global Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors, not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic Advisory Council members or its Directors.

The GWPF

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity. Its main purpose is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant.

The GWPF’s primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration.

We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.

For further information and interview requests, contact:

Dr Benny Peiser  – The Global Warming Policy Foundation – 1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB – tel: 020 7930 6856 – mob: 07553 361717 – info@thegwpf.org

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
RockyRoad

It may all be for naught:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/george-will-earth-doesn-t-care-what-is-done-to-it.html?from=rss
We’re just not that big of a factor, folks.

Philip Thomas

Woo hooo!
One thing. I don’t think you can just quickly cut and paste in entirity somebody else’s article without giving some sort of credit
It is this one, isn’t it? http://thegwpf.org/climategate/1532-damning-new-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries.html
Somebody got on the case just a bit too quickly after we complained meaning there was never any prior intention of using it.
Thanks though. Great post.

singularian

Brick by brick, they tore down the wall.

Philip Thomas

Mods,
The fact you just bare faced copied it off another site without reference means that perhaps there are new moderators? Just getting used to the job?
Reply: With a couple of exceptions, moderators do not put up posts. ~ ctm

The good Bishop nailed it once again. His observations on the failings of the various Climategate panels are all accurate as well as pointed. Sadly, I don’ t think they will have much effect.
As I’ve noted before, the UK likes to do their whitewashes in just this style. Convene several inquiries that each look at peripheral points and collectively let the main subject fall through the cracks.
But at the very least Andrew Montford has memorialized their failings.

EFS_Junior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
“The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a registered, educational charity and think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.”
“Established in November 2009, and chaired by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, GWPF states that it is “deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated” to address climate change and that it aims to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant”.”
“David Aaronovitch noted the GWPF’s launch in The Times, writing “Lord Lawson’s acceptance of the science turns out, on close scrutiny, to be considerably less than half-hearted. Thus he speaks of ‘the (present) majority scientific view’, hinting rather slyly at the near possibility of a future, entirely different scientific view. (…) ‘Sceptic’ (…) is simply a misnomer. People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true.”[16]
The Daily Mail stated that “(Lord Lawson) said the integrity of the evidence on which ‘far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions’ are based has been called into question and the reputation of British science was ‘seriously tarnished’. (He) was launching The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank devoted to challenging conventional wisdom about climate change.”[17]
The Guardian quoted Bob Ward of the LSE as saying “some of those names are straight from the Who’s Who of current climate change sceptics…It’s just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn’t been through scrutiny”. The article cast doubt on the idea that an upsurge in scepticism was underway, noting that “in (the US) Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science”[18]”
At least now we know who the thieves were of those stolen CRU emails, the GWPF!

EFS_Junior

RockyRoad says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:28 am
It may all be for naught:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/george-will-earth-doesn-t-care-what-is-done-to-it.html?from=rss
We’re just not that big of a factor, folks.
_____________________________________________________________
George Will is a NOOB of the first order.

Enneagram

We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.
Poor lads, need some charity from Big Oil!

Jim

The WUWT posting did open with acknowledgment of the source. Read the first sentence again.

Djozar

At last, some light breaks through the haze. Can not those with eyes see?

Phillip Bratby

We will see what the MSM makes of this in the UK. The key thing is whether Roger Harrabin at the BBC will mention it. I wonder if he was in the HoL for the release of the report.

Ken Hall

Philip Thomas is entirely correct. It is bad form to copy an entire article without attribution. If you have permission to do so, you aught to show that in your article, Anthony.
As for the article itself, it is not news to regular WUWT visitors. As many have posted, the various “whitewashes” were the moral equivalent of a court trying a serious fraud case, and banning the prosecution from court and then only asking the defence team to conduct the prosecution case in front of a hand-picked jury of the accused’s best friends.
It made whitewashes look honest and above board.
REPLY: The article was sent in it’s entirety to me via private email to my personal account, with the heading of PRESS RELEASE.
Note it says “PRESS RELEASE” in the article I’ve posted.
I need permission to repost press releases sent to me personally? You both need to get a life. – Anthony

Benjamin P.

Yes!!! Investigate the investigation(s), and then, investigate those. No stopping until heads are rolling. The witch hunt continues! And the best part is the obvious non-bias of a person like Andrew Montford.
Give me a break…

Enneagram

Be attentive guys, we are living in historical times which we could tell our grandchildren: The End of Anglia, becoming greener and greener.

Ed MacAulay

“One thing. I don’t think you can just quickly cut and paste in entirity somebody else’s article without giving some sort of credit”
Huh? I expect that is why it was described as a “Press Release”

You would be surprised what you can do with the facts and convincing lay people of what is happening. They may not be scientists, but once told what is going on the can figure it out … Be your own activist. Polar bears are particular easy targets, people have no idea where they came from, nor how long they have been around, not how far they can swim.
The end of the last ice age and sea rise is also a lucrative point to make.
I end my pitches with giving out the WUWT website ^_^

Ken Hall

EFS_Junior, can you present a single piece of evidence to support your ridiculous allegation?
A) The emails and related data were located (apparently) on open public servers, therefore the charge of theft does not stand. No more than a charge of theft against you for downloading the images and text of this HTML document you are reading.
B) Where is there any evidence, let alone proof, that the GWPF were the people who first accessed this data and spread it worldwide? The BBC had access to this data long before the GWPF was even established.
As I understand it, the GWPF was created in response to the outcry caused by the discovery of seriously “dodgy” and wholly UNscientific practices as exposed by the CRU email and data LEAK.

rbateman

Apparently, CRU doesn’t hold public trust or confidence in very high regard.
What ever are they thinking?

Philip Thomas
Jim says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:44 am
The WUWT posting did open with acknowledgment of the source. Read the first sentence again.

That was just the GWPFs introduction to its own release. All other versions of this release have the original source link but WUWT just packaged it as if it was their own. ClimateRealists gave source http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6291&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29
But then I’m so pleased it was posted that I’m willing to overlook this quibble.
REPLY: You really need to review my inline comment upstream. You’re way off base here. – Anthony

Ken Hall

Oh, and by the way EFS, using wikipedia as a source for anything, is not a sensible start to an argument.

John Blake

Big Government finances, promotes, sponsors at taxpayers’ expense every possible corrupt and malfeasant agenda that enhances its parasitic apparat’s hegemony over private citizens’ autonomy on every level. To the extent this peculating mandarinate preempts initiative, innovation, productive risk-takers’ rewards, just so will civil polities subside to socialized cesspools guaranteed to represent the worst-case of all scenarios.
Now on the threshold of a looming 70-year Maunder Minimum, if not an overdue end to our 12,250-year Holocene Interglacial Epoch itself, Thanatists who “love death more than life” (as jihadi Muslim terrorists are wont to say) are eager to reduce Gaia’s human population by 85% (not including themselves) by hardship and starvation to below a billion souls.
Anyone thinking this is an exaggeration had best re-read Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Peter Singer, James Hansen, Keith Farnish and others of their ilk from 1968. Wherever their thoroughly vicious mentality originates, these Luddite sociopaths pursue a homicidal agenda that prefers you dead.

artwest

The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/14/climategate-inquiries-lawson-report#start-of-comments
Monbiot’s minions in there early in the comments – predictably doing everything to avoid engaging with the substance, which they almost certainly haven’t read.

Ken Hall

This article (apologies Anthony, it is properly attributed at the start, I missed that) only reinforces what regulars at WUWT already know. that these multiple whitewashes were the moral equivalent of a criminal court case trying a case of fraud, where the prosecution was excluded from the court and the defense were invited to invent and present the prosecution case in front of a jury of the accused’s friends and closest colleagues.
They made whitewashes look honest and above board

Bernie

Mod – Please delete earlier comment.
Actually, I found Ross McKitrick’s analysis easier to read.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/rmck_climategate.pdf

There’s ‘establishment’ – and then there’s real establishment in Great Britain.
Just check the credentials of Lord Turnbull, from the top of this post:
‘Andrew Turnbull was Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords …’
He is what is commonly understood as a ‘Mandarin’. What he says has more weight in government circles than what the ‘establishment’ figures such as Lords Oxbourgh and Muir have put their names to in their whitewash attempts.
This report is not another example of brave flag-waving by some sceptics, it is more like a lit fuse, burning its way slowly but surely towards the coming explosion.
Bishop Hill has this very interesting remark on his blog:
“The moment of excitement was at the end, where Graham Stringer piped up from the back of the room. I hadn’t noticed he was there before then, but his comments did bring a certain focus to events. >SNIP>
… hearing from a member of the Science and Technology Committee that what was going on at CRU was literature and not science made the question of how much I was paid for the report seem somehow deeply irrelevant.”
(My emphasis)
One thing is for sure – this is not going to go away any time soon!

Martin Brumby

@EFS_Junior says: September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am
And the reason why you are coming on here with your wildly tendentious warmist comments, totally ignoring the points at issue, is……..?
Couldn’t be that, hiding behind your anonymous troll name, there is another little Bob Ward in the making, someone who actually earns his living by promoting CAGW myths and distortions?

max

Actually Phillip Thomas anything which can be considered the press can copy and paste from a “press release” at will without attribution (although there is an obligation to the readers to note that it is a press release when the re-publisher might be confused as the originator). A press release is a peculiar form of communication that is concerned with distribution of the information in the press release, and republishing the entire thing only enhances that distribution; inherent in the act of issuing a press release is permission to republish it. The only problem occurs when portions of a press release are used in a manner inconsistent with making the information in the press release widely available, and even then it is nearly always permissible.

Ray

It’s important that such news release make it to WUWT since it gives such news releases a much greater internet coverage than those sites where they come from.
Keep up the good work Anthony.

steveta_uk

Curious – you’ve got the date of the good Bishop’s book as 2008, whereas the press release says 2010. How did that happen?

Steve

“Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (2008),”
Interesting. Does he have a time-machine?

Jon

Re copying – it is a press release, and it says at the top it is a press release and where it cam from. I think the idea is that you are supposed to copy press releases 🙂
I was really interested when I saw the title but when I saw where it was from it was obvious it was not going to carry too much weight. Unless the media pick it up that is – let’s hope.

Billy Liar

EFS_Junior says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am
Are you trying to dump any credibility on this website that you may have had?
Quoting from Wikipedia on the subject of AGW just demonstrates you haven’t been paying attention.

BBD

EFS_Junior says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am
‘At least now we know who the thieves were of those stolen CRU emails, the GWPF!’
That’s libelous. Be careful.
Dominic

Dan in California

“Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need,” Lord Turnbull said.
It will be hard to restore public trust in the face of the “scientists” fiddling the historical record, writing computer programs that predict catastrophe regardless of data input, blackballing scientists who don’t agree, ignoring FOIA requests, and subverting the peer review process so that only their inside club can get published.
Just presenting the emails for public view would show the true colors of the government funded “scientists”
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
There are over 1000 emails, which makes it hard to claim they have been taken out of context.

Kitefreak

Ken Hall says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:59 am
EFS_Junior, can you present a single piece of evidence to support your ridiculous allegation?
——————-
Well, I read a bit of Junior’s post and got bored with his ridiculous drivel after the first couple of paragraphs, so skipped to the next post, but then his last sentence caught my eye and I had to read the rest of his utter, inane and spiteful rubbish to fill in the gap and try to make some sense of it.
What a waste of time.

I am beginning to think it is about time I write a letter to The BBC and to The Royal Society (Two identical letters will be posted to each) asking them why what is clear for me, a mere layperson, to see is impossible for them to comprehend, namely that the good ship IPCC is sinking, and that it is sinking fast.
It is clear, quite clear, to me that a shift of 0.01% in atmospheric gases cannot compare or outmanoeuvre any change in the irradiation of the Sun., however small it may be.

RockyRoad

Benjamin P. says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am
Yes!!! Investigate the investigation(s), and then, investigate those. No stopping until heads are rolling. The witch hunt continues! And the best part is the obvious non-bias of a person like Andrew Montford.
Give me a break…
————Reply:
And you’re saying those on the initial inquiries were NOT biased?
Investigations should continue (and will continue, I might add) until the objective of the inquiries has been met; obviously that did not happen with the original investigations as all were blatantly insufficient in that regard. We’re after the truth, sir. Only that. But certainly that until it is obtained.

Peter Miller

The UK Establishment has spoken: “Climategate – No wrong has been done.”
Having once done battle with the UK Establishment and been threatened by some of its leading litigators, I know that what is right and good is an inconsequential consideration to it, the only thing which matters is the preservation of the status quo.
In this instance, the status quo is the acceptance of bad science as fact, hence the string of whitewashes by those with obvious conflicts of interest.
It is the same the whole world over: ‘white collar’ criminals rarely get their just deserves and the fraud exposed in Climategate is a ‘white collar’ crime.

Charles Higley

No matter how you cut it, most of the CRU staff should be gone as they simply cannot be trusted. Confidence in the science cannot be achieved when it is still being maintained and presented by those who have proved that they were willing to adulterate it with no qualms and even defend their actions.
The IPCC needs to be dissolved as it has no purpose scientifically. It is a political body set up to make the case for emissions control worldwide. At the very least, its upper levels, those who adulterate the scientific conclusions of the real scientists, should be canned.
Only by real house-cleaning can anything be accomplished here and, even so, appointments being biased as they tend to be, we need real watchdogs to check everything. There is just too much riding on worldwide policy decisions to let a small group control the science, as we can see here.
There is good reason to make arguments in the US COngress based on economics. The warmists have faith that the science is solid, which it is definitely not, but they are also largely scientifically ignorant to boot. But, they do tend to have a sense or knowledge of basic economics, so we have to appeal to their expertise. The bottom line is that global warming, even if it was happening, would be nothing that we could not easily adapt to. So, Draconian measures proposed by extremists just are not needed and often have ulterior motives and goals. We have to be constantly on the alert for these hidden agendas, which usually benefit some particular group or friends of the politicians.
Arguing the economics in no way means that the science supports global warming—it most certainly does not. It just means that the warmists will not listen and do not want to learn or even understand the real situation. They have drunk the Kool-Aid and know they are right. So, other strategies must be taken.

ML

EFS_Junior says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am
———————————————–
Your post shows that:
1. You did not read the article
2. You know how to use wiki
3. Creative writing course diploma from UEA is as overvalued as 1 day metro pass
Keep going. I like free entertainment

John Whitman

Benjamin P. says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am
Yes!!! Investigate the investigation(s), and then, investigate those. No stopping until heads are rolling. The witch hunt continues! And the best part is the obvious non-bias of a person like Andrew Montford.
Give me a break…

———————
Benjamin P.,
Two points:
1) We actually know who the witches are with respect to CRU/Climategate: Jones et al. So the witch hunt is long since over. The question is whether or not their magic (pseudo science) conformed with the UN Magical Commission (IPCC) and with the UK’s Ministry of Magic (MET Office and the BBC). Watch out JK Rowling, this could be serious competition at the box-office.
2) We will know when the investigation ends when the government of the UK transfers all of CRU, in whole, over to some other place like Oxford or Cambridge. They can use the old CRU buildings at UEA as a retirement home for aging/homeless ex-UEA/CRU climate magicians.
John

Enneagram

O H Dahlsveen says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:39 am
the good ship IPCC is sinking, and that it is sinking fast.

Tell them the truth better: It sank long time ago. (Patchy, his leader, is now dedicated to writing XXX novels).

Olen

Looks like there has been a lot of rationalization, wishful thinking and fudging going on. That is no crime until you are using public funds and putting all that into official reports. Reports that result in legislation, taxation and regulation and extreme changes in the way we live.
When faced with a lack of proof the global warming crowd still have their fall back statement, “can we take the risk and do nothing”.
It seems to me that taking action on something that does not exist can be dangerous and costly. Dangerous in that you can do a lot of damage fixing something that is not broke and costly because its wasted effort.

Djozar

Benjamin P.
Investigate, and do it again. This group is wanting to dictate world wide policy affecting every aspect of life. When my shop produces plans, they are checked by the supervisor, then by me, then by my client and then by governmental oversight agencies. The issue of climate change deserves no less. Bring it all into the light of day, don’t restrict it to the few and then you can judge bias.

Myron Mesecke

Enneagram says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:43 am
“Poor lads, need some charity from Big Oil!”
Did you not finish reading the paragraph?
In order to make clear its complete independence, we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.

SteveS

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7jJI1cfEgc&fs=1&hl=en_GB]
Youtube seem to be playing about with this video too imo. Just as they appeared to do with the climategate search term. It has more views than all but one other video in the news&politics section but is on the second page. Is there some technical or statistical means to keep a watch on Youtube? There are important elections coming up.

INGSOC

Go get ’em guys! I just wish there was something more concrete I could do other than send money to GWPF. (Although that is a very good thing to do!) There is nothing more disruptive to the white-washers than doggedly refusing to accept the spin. Especially when they have spent so much capital getting their minions in the government/media to declare the issue over and done with, only to have to go back to addressing the dishonesty that hurts them most. Keep them reeling on their heels!

Oh yes, EFS Junior says a lot of things about Lord Lawson. (Ref: his comments on this post.)
For your information Lord Lawson is very well placed to not to be just a skeptic, – but to be an out and out [snip] – He was after all an integral part of the government which started this CO2 craze off in the first place. (Albeit in an attempt to promote nuclear power, a slightly different reason to today’s)
Nigel Lawson was the first chancellor to allocate extra money to climate research, -Climate research- with a particular empathizes on ‘The importance of Carbon Dioxide’s influence on Climate”
Nigel Lawson has not been asleep for the past 30 or so years, neither have I, but you EFS are a junior

Kitefreak

O H Dahlsveen says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:39 am
I am beginning to think it is about time I write a letter to The BBC and to The Royal Society ….
—————
I admire your ire, but, well, it’s the establishment. They own everything (BBC, Royal Society, etc). You don’t get to form a government in the UK unless a certain aristocrat asks you to.
I know none of the ‘official’ Climategate enquiries were public enquiries, but they all kind of had the establishment behind them. This enquiry is by a body very much outside the establishment (even though many of it leadership have been part of it). As such it will get, I think, very little MSM coverage.
As far as ‘public enquiries’ go, we can be sure that since the Public Enquiries Act of 2005, they are essentially meaningless, since they are censored/approved before release by the relevant government department implicated in the enquiry. This led to what a Canadian judge described as ‘an impossible, Alice in Wonderland situation’:
(this is from when the act was proposed)
——— BEGIN CITATION FROM OTHER INTERNET SOURCE ——–
Canadian Judge, Peter Cory who was commissioned by the British and Irish governments to investigate the possibility of state collusion in six high-profile murders, has criticised the Inquiries Act 2005. He told the United states House Foreign affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations:
“it seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The Commissions would be working in an impossible situation. For example, the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the inquiry. If the new Act were to become law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed Act.”
——— END CITATION FROM OTHER INTERNET SOURCE ——–

PeterB in Indianapolis

BenjaminP,
Montford is a lot closer to “unbiased” than any “climatologist” I have run accross so far… just sayin…