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
Andrew Miller, new leader of the HoC committee for science and technology, trying to sideline this report:
Another layer of misleading information to be patiently added to Montford’s list of disinformation or poor research so far: IPCC; CRU emails etc; all the enquiries including HoC; MSM.
It would be good to make sure Andrew Miller is informed that the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who sponsored the report, is stacked with highly competent, even top climate scientists; and that science by consensus is not science and never was; and that it’s the non-scientists like Al Gore who support AGW, who’ve tried to insist that minority views can safely be ignored.
@ur momisugly 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…”
What goes around, comes around mate. Will any psychologists here confirm that this is classic projection?
Er did anyone else notice this…
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.
And that both he and the GWPF made submissions to the Parliamentary enquiry… http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf
Is there anyone else who thinks that this report might not be impartial?
Turbobloke,
Yes….The Bihop is after the truth. That is a pesky irritant to the AGW community.
@ur momisugly Turboblocke says:
September 14, 2010 at 2:30 pm
‘Er did anyone else notice this…
About the author ….. Is there anyone else who thinks that this report might not be impartial?’
Keep ’em coming son, I haven’t laughed so much in ages. If only the trolls knew how plain silly and obvious they appear to rational people … this stuff might work at the Guardian but it won’t here.
Weasel, herring, and wine…. smack lips, gloop gloop… yes the Bishop’s report was the tastiest I’ve chewed over for a long time…
Weasel words from UEA eg that the science was going to be investigated. Red herrings from all the enquiries investigating anything but what the commotion has been about. And yes, McIntyre was not called a whiner.
Very observant McManus.
Yep. Also the ruffian’s ruse of distraction. Only here it’s threadbare.
Andrew, thank you, from the bottom of my heart. That is one superb report, lucid and clean. Excellent storyline too.
Makes me wonder if Joanne Rowling also saw such unbelievable convolutions of coverups involving most everybody, and decided the only way she’d get her truthful observations noticed was to write them as fiction. Because people do care about truth even when they feel they can’t admit it.
As a high school science teacher, you have no idea how difficult it is for me to persuade my students that AGW is not real. They have been well and truly brainwashed, as have their parents, from whom I occasionally get a heated e-mail accusing me of bringing politics into the classroom. I fear that long before good science trickles down to the masses I’ll have long since retired and perhaps even have wandered off this mortal coil. I can only hope that someday a former student remembers that I told him so. 🙂
REPLY: Keep fighting the good fight, the reward is knowing you are doing what your passion is, teach. – Anthony
mikef2 says:
September 14, 2010 at 12:50 pm
“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.”
That’s the way I read it. The conclusion is dawning that it’s nonsense on stilts which no one believes and is going to cost a fortune we haven’t got. Feelers are being nut out. Time for a U turn, time for an admission of being wrong which isn’t an admission of being wrong, and for some of the colleagues who have done out on a limb on this to accept a change of course, or career.
A change of direction on CAGW but not a full stop or reverse. Coping with inevitable climate change is the way they seem to be going, I would have thought that energy security would make more sense. In any case a lot of the apparatus assembled to combat climate change will need to go.
Turboblocke says:
September 14, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Is there anyone else who thinks that this report might not be impartial?
=========================================================
The report seems very partial…….towards the truth. Turbo, it is exactly as I recall it. Is there somewhere in the 54 pages that you can show where it isn’t truthful?
Jenn Oates says:
September 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm
“As a high school science teacher, ………..”
========================================================
They may not come up and tell you, but be sure many will remember. While I usually state this in reference to teacher pay debates and tenure, I think this applies here as well. A mediocre teacher isn’t worth that much. A good teacher can’t possibly be paid enough. Yours is a calling only a select few can aspire to.
Over on ‘The Telegraph’, Louise Gray comments about the inquiries in an almost even-handed fashion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8002466/Doubt-remains-over-climategate.html
Perhaps she has seen the light.
Re mikef2
During the election campaign, internal conservative polling showed climate change as a non-issue amongst party supporters, think it was about 10/12 vs 4/12 from national polling. This was from a presentation pre-election announcement, possibly based on polling data pre-Climategate.
Post election the government’s seen the books, realised the mess it’s in economically but still has to appease the voters. UK is currently having much political discussion about £6bn in public spending cuts to ease our deficit, but ignoring the £18bn a year we’re supposedly committed to spending via our legally binding Climate Change Act. Which is only legally binding if the government decides not to use regulatory reform legislation the last government implemented. But that’s the nuclear option, especially ahead of Cancun.
If there were some useful idiots to throw under the bus and blame for misleading Parliament though, the government would have an easy out, especially when it was the last government that created the legislation. Slight hitch with that is much of the current one also voted for it.
Andrew Montford’s earlier work – The Hockey Stick Illusion – was an excellent SUMMARY of all the arguments over the years. Helping people who found it hard to see the wood for the trees.
His report published today is a SYNTHESIS of all the criticisms of the UK “enquiries” – whitewashes – on the ClimateGate affair. That is its value. It is clearly written – and aimed directly at UK politicians and civil servants.
The foreword is by a 24-carat Mandarin – Lord Turnbull, former Cabinet Secretary and previously head of the UK Treasury. That gives a good deal of credibility, and makes it more likely to be read closely by MPs and civil servants. In particular, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology – some of whose members already feel they were seriously misled by the UEA when evidence on ClimateGate was first given just before the recent election. I would expect Montford will soon be called to give evidence to the Select Committee, which will be in public and will help re-open the whole can of worms.
And this will help focus the UK Treasury, which is urgently seeking massive cuts in public spending – including spending on research.
As mentioned above, Lord Turnbull has given an interview to The Register effectively saying that CRU is dead in the water :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/14/lord_turnbull_interview/
The Guardian’s senior environmental correspondent Fred Pearce says the report is obviously from a sceptic – but he spells out the main Montford criticisms, and does not dispute anything Montford says. People are already spitting blood about Pearce’s report :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/14/montford-climategate-gwpf-review
The Financial Times has reported :
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2914e324-c019-11df-b77d-00144feab49a.html
The Telegraph’s Louise Gray gives a half-fair report :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8002466/Doubt-remains-over-climategate.html
The BBC’s Roger Harrabin deliberately tries to confuse it all by focussing on criticism of Pachouri – omitting virtually all the Montford criticisms but of course giving the UEA’s rebuttal. This is BBC “journalism” at its biased worst :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11303686
……………..
Where might all this lead ? Firstly, the Montford synthesis report, very easy to read, is already getting a lot of press coverage. There are bound to be further sessions of the House of Commons Select Committee on ClimateGate. I would not be surprised if there is a separate debate in the House of Lords – with Lord Lawson (former Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Lord Turnbull asking Their Lordships to take stock. All this helps force the Government and the civil service to pay attention to Montford. Hopefully this will be reinforced by us hoi polloi asking our MPs to take the matter up with Ministers – pressing Ministers to deal explicitly with the Montford report.
So, I do not see any chance soon for ClimateGate to be swept under the carpet. The earlier “enquiries” were such a travesty, their failings are so crystal-clear, Montford’s detailed criticisms cannot be ignored.
We need to come to the defense of Anthony here. Having done PR work while in the electric power industry, I’m familar with press releases.
What Anthony did is ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE with the title “Press Release” at the top.
As soon as I saw that, I realized the text was from a “press release”. If Anthony errored, perhaps an “End Text” or “End of Press Release” at the bottom, with a line of comment would make it unmistakeably clear.
REPLY: Normally press releases close with “-30-” which appears after the body and before the media contact information, indicating to media that the release has ended. Sometime the close has been the “###” symbol. These are holdovers from teletype days. They did neither, and I reproduced it exactly as was sent, including the headline. – Anthony
Atomic Hairdryer says:
September 14, 2010 at 4:31 pm
“….If there were some useful idiots to throw under the bus and blame ……”
========================================================
You’ve plenty there to pick from. But if that fails, there’s always plenty here in the U.S. to pick from. That’s always in vogue.
Max Hugoson says:
September 14, 2010 at 4:48 pm
“We need to come to the defense of Anthony here. Having done PR work while in the electric power industry, I’m familar with press releases.
What Anthony did is ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE with the title “Press Release” at the top.”
======================================================
We all know Anthony was entirely legitimate. I’ve seen this occur here from time to time. It seems to be some form of jealousy or some other character flaw. Which is perplexing and disturbing to me. I agree with the Reagan principle, (adapted to skepticism) to a point. After that point is exceeded, (and they got close)a different point will be made, and then for me, the dust from the soles will be wiped and a back turned.
Most of us here are intelligent enough to know were credit is due and the origination of thoughts expressed. That’s much of what we do. (We being skeptics.) Personally, I don’t care who gets to wear the button du jour, nor does any legitimate skeptic I know. If someone can use a salient point I’ve made, (good luck) then by all means use it if it helps further skepticism in current climate science.
Jim G says:
September 14, 2010 at 12:40 pm (Edit)
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.
I think a small Siberian salt mine would be more appropriate, don’t you? 😉
Mountford is to be commended for the clarity and simplicity of his report of a complex issue, as is Lord Turnbull for the same clarity and unequivocality. Both gentleman call a spae just that! I believe the issues have only become complex because the three enquiries sought to bury Climategate, and in the most arrogant fashion, which has always typified the British Establishment. Truth has a wonderful way of emerging, no matter how deeply buried. Mountford’s £3000.00 fee is wondefully parsimonious compared with the £40000 paid to the former VC of Edinborough university for merely chairing his enquiry.
I suspect the next stage in this UK saga will be another Parliamentary Enquiry, this time looking for scapegoats who will be ritually punished and scorned by the scientific and political elites ,who will universally claim they were sceptical of the extremists and alarmists all along.
As a footnote, Roger Harrabin’s reporting on this for the BBC is more akin to cant than to objective reportage.
Kate, your comments about The Guardian Gets Nastier are so true. I quickly scan that paperr’s CiF Green every morning and note that the same few incredibly nasty sycophants pant for the metaphorical blood of any person who dares to make a contrary comment. I once attempted, over a few months, to engage with them but their nastiness was so counterproductive and personal and eventually gave up after my son warned me that arguing with zealots is bad for one’s mental health!.
Olen says:
September 14, 2010 at 10:59 am
….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.
_____________________________________________-
It is even worse than that. If we “De-develop” the First World countries and redistribute the “wealth” (eat the seed corn) as Holdern, Obama’s director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy wants, we leave people at the mercy of the climate with no technology to help us adapt. This is especially true if as some think we are headed towards cooling for thirty or more years.
It is a nasty way of killing off a lot of people.
Note Holdren’s book was published in 1973 a year after Maurice Strong invited Greenpeace and other activist groups to the first Earth Summit, gave them a talk on potential environmental disasters and CAGW and then told them to “Go home and raise hell” Coincidence??? I think not.
In the 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
[The UN First Earth Summit was the launch of the “massive campaign”]
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”
Agenda 21 is that economic plan.
The connection between the two is Shell oil company among others (Maurice Strong did a deal with Shell that enabled Shell to take over the only remaining all-Canadian oil company. )
CRU was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies ,Shell and BP. – Wikipedia
“Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4] “
The two agencies who founded the IPCC are the WMO and UNEP. So who founded the UNEP and who ran it? “During December 1972, the UN General Assembly unanimously elected Maurice Strong to head UNEP.”
This Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) (code phrase for Agenda 21) shows another connection.
Here is more on the (B1) scenario IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Here is who Ged Davis in the e-mail is (Shell Oil executive and senario writer with IPCC connection)
CRU Funding
British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
Central Electricity Generating Board
Eastern Electricity
KFA Germany (Nuclear)
Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
National Power
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
Shell (Oil, LNG)
Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Maurice Strong
Strong started in the oil business in the 1950s working for the Rockefellers in Saudia Arabia. He was president of a major holding company — the Power Corporation of Canada. in 1975, he was invited by Canada to run the semi-national Petro-Canada. He did another deal with Saudi arms deal, Adnan Khashoggi acquiring AZL, a conglomerate owning feed lots, land, gas and oil interests, and engineering firms. Strong was Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), until 1981. He is a Senior Adviser to the World Bank and Trustee of the Rockefeller foundation.
http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
I always laugh when some one accuses “Deniers” (Skeptics) of being funded by “big Oil” given all these connections.
INGSOC says:
September 14, 2010 at 11:21 am
Go get ‘em guys! I just wish there was something more concrete I could do other than send money to GWPF….
___________________________________________________
There is make phone call to politicians. I have left more than one stuttering BUT but but but.
Just make sure you have your ducks in a row. I hit them on the World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag scam too.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
Jenn Oates says:
September 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm
As a high school science teacher, you have no idea how difficult it is for me to persuade my students that AGW is not real. They have been well and truly brainwashed, as have their parents, from whom I occasionally get a heated e-mail accusing me of bringing politics into the classroom. I fear that long before good science trickles down to the masses I’ll have long since retired and perhaps even have wandered off this mortal coil. I can only hope that someday a former student remembers that I told him so. 🙂
_________________________________________________
Take heart, Mother Nature is in your corner and as we saw last winter, especially during Copenhagen, She has a sense of humor.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/president_snow_copenhagen.jpg?w=510&h=340
Several scientists are predicting a change to cooler weather patterns, that is why “Global Warming” is now being spun as “Climate Change” When we continue to get cold nasty winters and high heating bills reality will set in. I have noticed a lot of people have already started waking up in the last year.
Alexander K says:
September 15, 2010 at 5:16 am
Mountford is to be commended for the clarity and simplicity of his report of a complex issue, as is Lord Turnbull for the same clarity and unequivocality. Both gentleman call a spae just that! I believe the issues have only become complex because the three enquiries sought to bury Climategate, and in the most arrogant fashion, which has always typified the British Establishment. Truth has a wonderful way of emerging, no matter how deeply buried. Mountford’s £3000.00 fee is wondefully parsimonious compared with the £40000 paid to the former VC of Edinborough university for merely chairing his enquiry…..
_________________________________________________
Mountford is certainly to be commended for his excellent report done at a very reasonable fee. Hubby is a tech writer and has been paid $70 or more an hour. I imagine this report took more than two weeks to put together and rwrite.
The former VC of Edinborough university was not only paid £40000 for a couple days work, he was rewarded with Non-Executive Director of Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC with the intention that he becomes Chairman in early 2007 for his work on CAGW. This allows “bonuses” to be paid as an additional reward.
CRU was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies ,Shell and BP. – Wikipedia
“Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4] “
Sort of incestuous isn’t it.