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
Well, I’ve read the report now, and Andrew Montfort, a.k.a Bishop Hill, has not pulled any punches.
As he writes in a cool, clear and precise language, his findings are all the more devastating.
To be sure, his critical comments and findings are not substantially new to anybody who has been keeping up with the debates here, at CA and at other blogs – but this report will find its way into the hands of those who do not read blogs and have only a hazy or distorted knowledge of what has been going on.
Like … British MPs, for example …
I am sure GWPF will see to it that this report isn’t going to linger on the internet after the MSM have grudgingly acknowledged its existence.
EFS_Junior,
All Wikipedia entries regarding anything having to do with “climate” are edited HEAVILY by a guy named Connoley who I am sure you are very familliar with.
I personally don’t believe a single thing on Wikipedia I read about “climate”. I would recommend you take any Wikipedia entries about “climate” with a HUGE grain of salt as well.
Look guys and gals don’t harass the warmists who comment on these postings.too much. Instead “Give’m enough rope”
Can anybody say if the East Anglia Police have completed their investigations into the alleged theft of the CRU emails?
Alister Doyle from Reuters:
“Patrick Hunt, of Stanford University in California who is trying to discover where Carthaginian general Hannibal invaded Italy in 218 BC with an army and elephants, said there was an “alarming rate” of thaw in the Alps.
“This is the first summer since 1994 when we began our Alpine field excavations above 8,000 ft that we have not been inundated by even one day of rain, sleet and snow flurries,” he said.
“I expect we will see more ‘ice patch archaeology discoveries’,” he said. Hannibal found snow on the Alpine pass he crossed in autumn, according to ancient writers.
Glaciers are in retreat from the Andes to the Alps, as a likely side-effect of global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the U.N. panel of climate experts says.
The panel’s credibility has suffered since its 2007 report exaggerated a thaw by saying Himalayan glaciers might vanish by 2035. It has stuck to its main conclusion that it is “very likely” that human activities are to blame for global warming.
“Over the past 150 years we have had a worldwide trend of glacial retreat,” said Michael Zemp, director of the Swiss-based World Glacier Monitoring Service. While many factors were at play, he said “the main driver is global warming.”
In Norway, “some ice fields are at their minimum for at least 3,000 years,” said Rune Strand Oedegaard, a glacier and permafrost expert from Norway’s Gjoevik University College.”
Once again, amalgame and innuendos continue to be Reuters way to spread alarmism…
Mods,
Totally wrong about the cut’n’paste accusation. Very sorry. I just had a bee in my bonnet about the commenters having to hound you into putting the story on your site.
Keep up the good work.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/14/lord_turnbull_interview/
artwest says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:13 am
Refers us to The Guardian and states:-
“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.”
Fred Pearce has also made comments. He is critical of Montford’s bias but the meat of his comments are quite a bit tougher.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/14/montford-climategate-gwpf-review
Enneagram says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:43 am
“We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.
Poor lads, need some charity from Big Oil!”
Mr/Ms Ennegram. I think you have just demonstrated cherry-picking perfectly as from the GWPF website and also at the foot of the article above;
“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.”
Can they not make it any more plain?
Then Greenpacce is in like Flynn….?
EFS_Junior says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:35 am
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation”
Can I suggest you extend your reading matter to the report under discussion which you can find here;
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
If you don’t like it then perhaps you could address your criticism to the two spelling mistakes it contains, which would be as useful as citing wikipedia articles on climate as a means to discredit it.
Roger Harrabin at the BBC has mentioned it, but is rather dismissive, prefering to concentrate on Pachauri. He also lets UEA have the last word. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11303686
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
September 14, 2010 at 11:35 am
EFS_Junior,
“All Wikipedia entries regarding anything having to do with “climate” are edited HEAVILY by a guy named Connoley who I am sure you are very familliar with.”
I personally don’t believe a single thing on Wikipedia I read about “climate”. I would recommend you take any Wikipedia entries about “climate” with a HUGE grain of salt as well.
The Big Lie is the very basis of “progressive” programs. Ignorance is their bedrock constituency. Ignorance, by the way, has only a partial relationship to education. Google “ice age time lines” or similar and it is difficult to obtain a chart that does not include a CO2 comparison. Wikipedia is a prime example. The propaganda machine is all pervasive.
The BBC’s coverage is a masterpiece of obfuscation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11303686
Neil Hampshire says:
September 14, 2010 at 11:52 am
Fred Pearce has also made comments. He is critical of Montford’s bias but the meat of his comments are quite a bit tougher.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/14/montford-climategate-gwpf-review
He is critical of Montford’s bias calling it hypocrytical as Montford was complaining of bias of the committees. At the foot of Pearce’s article, we find this;
“• Fred Pearce is an environment writer and author of The Last Generation: How nature will take her revenge for climate change.”
Hypocritical? Who? Moi?
The Guardian Gets Nastier
Never mind the email-gate whitewash inquiry (which will languish forever in the dungeons of infamy), there’s a much more interesting article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/14/republicans-senate-election-climate-sceptics
“,,,Republican ‘climate zombies’ could claim the US Senate
“A survey of comments made by Republican candidates for the US Senate show vast majority are climate sceptics
“You might want to find yourself an indelible marker pen and draw a large black circle around 3 November – it could be the morning the world wakes up to discover that the US Senate is now controlled by climate sceptics…”
The article goes on to reveal what the new insult “climate zombies” means…
“…Over at the Daily Kos, a contributor called “RLMiller” has now begun a project called “Climate Zombies” (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/5/899029/-Stupid-Goes-Viral:-The-Climate-Zombies-of-the-New-GOP) in which he is asking readers to help him monitor the comments of “every Republican candidate for House, Senate, and Governor who claims that global warming is a hoax, doubts the science of climate change, and wants a new Dark Ages for America”…”
Also this: “…the “zombie” term refers to the repeatedly discredited arguments that climate change deniers continue to chant no matter how frequently or thoroughly their arguments continue to be refuted by science. An example is your implication above that if climate change deniers have their delicate feelings hurt by something, the earth cannot be warming…”
So now we have a new insult to add to all the others for calling out the global warming fraud, the poor little brainwashed things having got tired of the old ones. And there’s a new website to mark out those Republican Senators who don’t agree with everything the global warming liars want to scream themselves silly about.
Ladies and Gents,
There is a bit of a change going on in UK politics at the moment. Whilst paying lip service to many fads to get elected, it seems ‘just call me Dave’ is not quite so ‘green’ as he wanted to appear. Neither is his bedfellow ‘pragmatic Nick’. The government is looking to save gadzillions at the moment and has already hinted that maybe ‘adapting’ to climate change rather than ‘fighting’ it would be more prudent. I see this as the first shot across the bows on the good ship “we can’t afford this twaddle anymore” and as people have noticed, the real establishment is moving to throw thier previous Green helpers under the next bendy bus. They need to do this so they can cut the budgets without the “what about the poor planet” wails from Monbiot and his ilk. So expect to see the consensus science seriously questioned…this is just the start.
OT
I’m looking for a time lapse video of sunspot activity for the past 12 year period for a presentation I’m working on. I would like to do a side by side comparing it with the past 3 year solar activity.
Sort of like the time lapses in this video but with the complete past 12 years in a continuous unbroken clip.
“Refers us to The Guardian and states:-”
How quaint! Are there really people who still read the Guardian? And George Monbiot?
Somehow I just do not see anything coming of this. The fix is in, and that is apparent. We can only hope that the truth and reality sink this titanic as the faux scientists at the heart of climategate will never let go of their propaganda.
Well everyone has noted that a couple of clueless trolls have made an appearance today. I would like to welcome them both on board especially junior. Children always have a special way of saying the wrong thing in the funniest way and I just love the entertainment that brings.
Carry on Junior, you plonker, I need a really big laugh today.
A report full of weasel words , red herrings and whines that McIntyre wasn’t called ( real scientists were) means too little too late.
Sorry Bishop: too little too late.
When the best the true believers can do is to snipe at the sourcing of the article- which only needs the sniper to ignore the opening sentance of the post- it is pretty clear they are going to do their very best (well practiced this past year) of ignoring the actual article and seeking to discredit it for trivial reasons.
extra points, by the way, for the great Sherlock impersonator who has decided that not only were the CRU e-mails stolen, but that the author of the press release stole them.
Benjamin P. says:
September 14, 2010 at 9:53 am
“blah, whine, blah.”
==========================================================
Read the report, sis, and then come back and talk about it.
John McManus says:
September 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm
“A report full of weasel words , red herrings and whines that McIntyre wasn’t called ( real scientists were) means too little too late.”
=========================================================
Weasel words? I thought it rather clear. Skeptics were locked out of the panels. The panels were stocked to give a foregone conclusion. People with direct evidence regarding against the scientists were not questioned or their evidence was summarily ignored. The papers with dubious conclusions were not reviewed, the incestuous relationship between UEA, CRU, and the IPCC wasn’t even broached. The laws that were broke weren’t mentioned and the professional misconduct overlooked. What weasel words?