Press Release
London, 25 January: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) remains deeply concerned about the failure by academic and parliamentary inquires to fully and independently investigate the ‘Climategate’ affair.
The latest follow-up report by the Science and Technology Committee on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) confirms that the Climategate inquiries had serious flaws, lacked balance and transparency and failed to achieve their objective to restore trust and confidence in British climate science.
The report by the Science and Technology Committee shows that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were deficient and biased.
In particular, the report finds that:
- UEA Vice-Chancellor Professor Acton misled the House of Commons Committee over the nature of the Science Appraisal Panel (paragraph 23).
- As Graham Stringer MP, a member of the Committee, has pointed out: “The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers… This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable.”
- Lord Oxburgh’s Science Appraisal Panel may have not been wholly independent (paragraph 32).
- The review by Lord Oxburgh lacked rigour and diligence (paragraphs 33; 61).
- The Inquiries failed to investigate the serious allegation relating to the deletion of e-mails in response to an FOI request (89).
- None of the inquiries have determined if CRU staff actually contacted the journals they discussed threatening. The alleged threatening of the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, arguably the most important incident in this area, has yet to be examined at all. The committee’s finding in this area is shameful.
Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF’s report into “The Climategate Inquires” said:
“The committee suggest that we should all just move on. That may be what suits most politicians, but the public deserve to know the truth. The committee have turned a blind eye to the abundant evidence of wrongdoing at UEA and in the Climategate inquiries.”
We share the view by Graham Stringer that the UEA failed to set up independent panels that would have ensured an independent and objective scrutiny of the Climategate affair.
Mr Stringer’s conclusion encapsulates the utter failure of the Climategate inquires:
“We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”
— end
Contact details:
Dr Benny Peiser
Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB
tel: 020 7930 6856
mob: 07553 361717
Note for Editors:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org) is an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity.
Our 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.
Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and its economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.
We intend to develop alternative policy options and to foster a proper debate (which at present scarcely exists) on the likely cost and consequences of current policies.
We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, sic ’em boys!
We should all be impressed that this organization was willing to come out and say that “remains deeply concerned about the failure by academic and parliamentary inquires to fully and independently investigate the ‘Climategate’ affair.”
That such an organization goes out and says that there was no independent investigation of the issues says a lot. It is certainly possible that this is a calculated tactic to get an investigation that will be considered independent, but provide the same results, but they are speaking out against the whitewash.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic
Interned censorship HA! In the days before open access to the internet I built my son a computer with a BBS on the wire. Then we started to add servers when Al Gore “invented” the internet. There is no going back to the old ways. Now the net covers the world. The old ways of information control to control the populis is over. pg
E.M.Smith says: (January 24, 2011 at 8:28 pm)
BTW, per internet censorship:
They can try, and they will fail. Too many ways to route information around the roadblocks.
Heartening. Thanks.
E.M.Smith says:
January 24, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“So I’m not too worried about folks “shutting down the internet”. At most, it will be a nice chance to try out some interesting distributed collaborative computing software I’ve been wanting to try…”
I agree. They could make a wicked mess out of many things that are dependent on the net, but they can’t stop the free flow of information. There’s too much knowledge out there and they’ve greatly standardized comm. Like you, I’ve got some toys I’ve been wanting to play with…….I would imagine if the web suddenly disappeared tomorrow, we’d have several thousand(millions?) mini-webs up and running within hours…..all growing towards each other.
E.M.Smith says: “…So I’m not too worried about folks “shutting down the internet”. At most, it will be a nice chance to try out some interesting distributed collaborative computing sofware I’ve been wanting to try…”
Nevertheless, we need to push back now, and push back hard. An ounce of Prevention is worth a pound of anything else. The notion of control of the Internet is unnecessary and in itself an obvious and intolerable attack on liberty. There are other wrinkles you haven’t thought of, EMS, and believe me, the other side has. Even now, they are planning the Internet equivalent of the Reichstag fire.
It is important that other issues not be conflated with this one. Let it stand alone, and it will draw support across all true liberal and libertarian groups, a majority from day one.
“In 1943, the White Rose was fighting a lost battle; that train had already left the station in 1934.” –German interviewee
This distraction has cost the world billions of dollars. For a minuscule fraction of that amount the cod fisheries of the great banks could have been restored. Tuna could be re-introduced in the Mediterranean. Forests could be replanted in upland Africa. Huge portions of India could be replanted and restocked.
We are like Constantinople before the fall. Worried about fashion while the world crumbles around us.
Browner stepping down the day before State of the Union Address
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70O0CN20110125?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Boiled down to their essence, the British “inquiries” are:
We went out to CRU and took the guided tour.
Then we asked, “Have any of you boys and girls done anything naughty lately?”
(headshakes)
So we said, “Okay, good enough for us.”
For Michael Mann we are given the similar:
We asked Mike and he said, “No.”
He’s still got grants so he must be all right.
The two main conclusions I’ve been able to form about “Climategate” are:
1. Those who claim there’s nothing worth bothering with have not studied it.
2. Those who claim to have looked at it and found nothing are lying.
It’s worth reading all of MP Graham Stringer’s proposed remarks at the end of the SciTech report on Bishop Hill:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/1/25/words-that-must-remain-unspoken.html
The one honourable member of the committee was ignored, but his proposed amendment will be the one that everyone remembers, as others have noted.
Anyone see the BBC Horizon programme last night? It attacked sceptics as being DENIERS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql
I found it absolutely disgusting that the BBc would stoop to using abuse against those who think the science of AGW is flawed.
It also contained the immortal line that sceptic, Prof Singer, was ‘only concentrating on one issue and missing the bigger picture’ (with his stalegmite records). Err, sorry, but is that not what thermists are doing with their complete concentration on CO2 and utter disregard for all other factors??
You can make a complaint to the BBC by email. Just Google BBC complaints.
.
richard verney –
yes the internet changed so much; however, has everyone noticed that google has shut down its “search within results” feature and caused outrage. a spokeswoman has come up with this explanation but no-one seems to be buying it, least of all me.
it was this feature which helped with research online, and it was the only advantage google had over other search engines. how i’ve longed to change to another search engine! now – and like many others – i will finally be doing so. i do not want to post links that may get chopped, but u can find the debate raging on various forums and websites.
here’s google kelly f”s story:
“As you may have noticed, the Search within results link no longer appears at the bottom of your search results page. Right now you might be thinking, ‘What? No way! How am I going to narrow down my results now that it’s gone?’ Well have no fear – I’ve got a little secret for you: when you used to click on the Search within results link and type in additional search terms, you weren’t actually searching within your previous list of results. In reality, your new search terms were simply added on to your original entry and then another search was performed. We’ve eliminated that extra step you used to take to modify your results.”
As an aside, horizon is supposed to be the BBCs flagship science program. Yet this episode contained no science whatsoever, explored none of the controversies in a scientific fashion, failed to explore all avenues and possibilities, and was simply a propaganda piece for Thermists.
Typical BBC. No wonder it is known as the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.
.
Theo Goodwin says:
January 24, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Good work, Dr. Peiser and GWPF. Keep up the pressure on them. Don’t let them rest. Remind everyone daily of what scoundrels they are.
__________________________________________
Not to be undiplomatic, but, where was the GWPF voice when this was all originally going on? They had to know how biased, in favor of EAU, the selection was for the investigation. There is an aspect of prudence that can save ones reputation without any honest intentions being present.
GWPF….We will sit on this til it’s obvious that the investigation fails to exonerate EAU, then we will cry foul, ergo, to wit, hence, self-preservation.
I know it sounds a bit cynical, but, the whole infrastructure has to go. The smoke of it’s corruption is nauseating.
Long live free speech, the antidote to fascist/communist control of information! We can thank our lucky stars for the open society of the internet 🙂 🙂 🙂
People, people. There’s NOTHING to see here. There was a thorough investigation which completely vindicated the gatemailers. They were just discussing in private the most efficient way to protect us all. How to more efficiently save the world, really. Nothing was done that could in any way be called ‘bad’. The word ‘trick’ was referring to a scientific consept which is beyond our simplistic understanding. And phrases such as ‘tell that mofo McIntyre to STFU and GTFO – and don’t give him any data’, is just normal jargon in the peer review process.
I, for one, am happy to see that they are so open about it all. It must be because of their confidence in understanding CO2 and the climate system. They are so welcoming of alternative takes on different issues. So open minded and ready to face criticism. They are true scientists indeed.
/sarc off
I really must say that the standards Schmitdt et al. have made for climate science is a true disgrace. There is an active downplaying of opposing data, a censoring of conflicting views, and a way of treating statistics which would make (the likes of) Fischer turn in his grave. Every time Schmidt at RC says something smug along the lines of : “Well, you see in real science we(…)”, I throw up a little in my mouth.
Are you serious? What a surprise an organisation set up by skeptics, housed in a Materials and Mining institute is critical of several enquiries clearing the CRU. I would have never guessed, hardly an independent organisation. Hardly newsworthy, nothing would ever be enough, totally manufactured newsflash.
But typically you guys eat it up.
Far from concluding the science is unclear, if we’ve had 2 staged inquiries design to produce a whitewash, then the sensible and rationale conclusion is that someone doesn’t want the truth to come out – i.e. that the science is a mess.
The MP Graham Stringer’s proposed ammendment to this report, though voted down by three MPs for various obscure reaesons, will grow very muscular legs indeed as it has the virtue of being the plain and unvarnished truth, and truth has a wonderful habit of emerging into view of the public despite whatever the powerful and un-good throw in it’s path.
The old habit of whitewashing facts out of sight does not work in the internet era.
They forget that we don’t need inquiries to know that we can’t trust the CRU and their science is rubbish. The emails are all available on line and we can read how devious Dr. Jones et al were at hiding the truth from the public. Science isn’t about trust, it’s about facts.
You can also complain re Beeb on Points of View http://www.mybbccomplaints.co.uk/forum/index.html
25/01/11
MPs Slam Secretive Climategate Inquiries
Two inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive. The row, which became known as Climategate, erupted in 2009 over allegations that researchers had deliberately strengthened evidence suggesting human activity was to blame for rising temperatures. MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have now concluded that both probes into the scandal had failed to fully investigate claims that scientists had deleted embarrassing emails.
The investigations were set up after around 4,000 leaked emails and documents appeared to show that scientists at East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit had manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming. UEA’s Independent Climate Change Emails Review was led by Sir Muir Russell, while the Scientific Appraisal Panel was led by Lord Oxburgh.
But the MPs said they had reservations about both inquiries. They criticised the brevity of the appraisal panel report, at “a mere five pages”, and said both investigations should have been more open to the public. The committee also said the emails review “did not fully investigate the serious allegation” relating to the deletion of emails and instead relied on a verbal reassurance that the messages still exist.
Though the committee was split over the credibility of the inquiries, an amendment put forward by Labour MP Graham Stringer which said that they had not been independent was voted down by members. He said Lord Oxburgh appeared to have a conflict of interest because of his links to “green” businesses while the Emails Review panel included a former Climate Research Unit scientist. He maintained: “We are now left without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”
Last night Dr Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: “Mr Stringer is saying what many critical observers think. The inquiries were inept, biased and have not closed this affair. The MPs’ report says we should move on but you cannot if you have unfinished business.”
Yesterday, the university said that it welcomed the report and stressed that the independent inquiries “had exonerated our scientists of any wrongdoing”. It said many of the inquiries’ “clear and sensible” recommendations had already been implemented.
An East Anglia University spokesman said: “The fact remains that the findings of the Climatic Research Unit are entirely consistent with those of other independent research groups across the globe.”
…Two inquiries condemned by MPs as “ineffective” and “secretive” but it’s all OK because the CRU’s findings are the same as those of other groups – a statement which fails to mention that the CRU was the source of those other groups’ corrupted data in the first place. The UEA statement also moved the pea in the shell from the subject of the behaviour of Jones and his gang of CRU lying fraudsters to the other shell which is all about the findings of other climate research groups.
What the CRU inquires never appreciated, was that people could read for themselves what was going on and came to an opinion on the emails based on their own personal experience of what is and is not acceptable behaviour in their own workplace.
So, when they all said: “the behaviour of the CRU is perfectly acceptable in science” … it didn’t change anyone’s mind regarding the legitimacy of the climategate team’s behaviour, instead it told the public what was acceptable behaviour in UK “science”.
Paradoxically, the best way to have kept the global warming bandwagon rolling along would have been to swiftlky come down like a tonne of bricks: to have stated that such behaviour was unacceptable, to emphasise the importance of independent peer review, to have sacked/demoted/redeployed anyone tainted by the scandal and then once having established that UK science did not accept second standard, to have thoroughly reviewed the science.
Just like Watergate, the original misdeeds were pretty minor – a rogue element in the republican party, a rogue element in science. The real scandal was not the rogue element, but the way the body politic/science tried to cover up the deeds of the rogue element.
I said so at the time. Three investigations and three sets of whitewash.
The (once flagship) BBC science programm Horizon had (Sir) Paul Nurse (the new president of the Royal Society) in an hour of unremitting propaganda last night. Himself evidently a most charming and intelligent man, he effortlessly set up a series of straw men to argue the sceptic case – he resulting interviews were of course edited by him and the BBC. So the Svenson/Kirby work at CERN was represented by an elderly gent whose only evidence was ‘a cave in Saudi Arabia’. The CRUgate email farrago was haltingly described by a minor D Telegraph reporter. NASA were allowed to getaway with ludicrously overblown claims. Where was Monckton, McIntyre, Lindzen, Watts, Lawson etc. We sceptics (‘deniers’ at one point) were of course always cherry picking, so unlike the paragons of state sponsored research.
Absolutely shocking, if not unexpected.