Climategate: The Official Cover-up Continues

If there’s one thing that stinks even more than Climategate, it’s the attempts we’re seeing everywhere from the IPCC and Penn State University to the BBC to pretend that nothing seriously bad has happened, that “the science” is still “settled”, and that it’s perfectly OK for the authorities go on throwing loads more of our money at a problem that doesn’t exist.

The latest example of this noisome phenomenon is Sir Muir Russell’s official whitewash – sorry “independent inquiry”  into the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) scandal.

The inquiry has not even begun and already it has told its first blatant lie – seen here on its official website.

Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No.  Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

By what bizarre logic, then, did Sir Muir think it a good idea to appoint to his panel the editor of Nature, Dr Philip Campbell? Dr Campbell is hardly neutral: his magazine has for years been arguing aggressively in favour of the AGW, and which published this editorial in the wake of Climategate:

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

Dr Campbell has since resigned his post – and rightly so, as the Global Warming Policy Foundation makes clear. But are we to feel any more confident about the alleged neutrality of another of Sir Muir’s appointments, Professor Geoffrey Boulton?

Bishop Hill certainly doesn’t think so. He notes that Professor Boulton….

  • spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
  • works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team
  • says the argument over climate change is over
  • tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change
  • believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050
  • signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity
  • could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger
  • is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate.

You wonder, if Sir Muir really is that determined to keep his inquiry totally unbiased, independent, above-board and scrupulously neutral why he just doesn’t go the whole hog and appoint Al Gore, James Hansen and Rajendra Pachauri. I doubt the conclusions they’d reach would be any different.

Related posts:

  1. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
  2. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  3. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  4. Climategate: the parliamentary cover-up

8 Responses to “Climategate: the official cover-up continues”

  1. Rupert says:February 13, 2010 at 10:03 amForgive my naivety but why are all these warming alarmists bothering to engage in any debate at all with the capitalist globalisation running-dog lackeys of the denialist movement over facts, figures and projections. Surely it would be more efficacious to adopt the tactics of the spine wizards at the British Chiropractic Association in dealing with Simon Singh and use England’s celebrated libel laws to silence Messrs Delingpole, Booker, North, Watt etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    Or would there just be too many people on the defendants list…?
  2. Tom Forrester-Paton says:February 14, 2010 at 2:58 amRupert – that would result in a TRIAL, a procedure involving forensic logic, a concept clearly alien to them, but which they rightly suspect might prove uncomfortable. It would also probably result in the public airing, under oath, of all sorts of evidence whch might compel hitherto lethargic and compliant prosecutorial services (aka Mr Plod) to act. Bring it on….!
  3. Tom Forrester-Paton says:February 15, 2010 at 12:31 amJames – in view of Dr Pachari’s recently-revealed literary talents, should we not in future refer to him as “Paperback Raitha”? Sorry, I couldn’t resist…
  4. Rupert says:February 15, 2010 at 5:28 pmOnly one man can save the IPCC from the stench of the ordure in now finds itself in. Enter stage left the world’s latest superhero the ever fragrant Doctor Patchouli !!!
  5. Rupert says:February 15, 2010 at 8:50 pmI wonder what Al Gore would really like to do with the multitudinous ‘deniers’? After all his name is an anagram of ‘gaoler’…
  6. David Q. Hall says:February 16, 2010 at 4:23 pmHolocene glacial retreat and sea level rise is an accepted geological fact:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

    In the past 20,000 yrs sea levels have risen as much as 10-15 meters in a 500 year interval.

    During the Eocene there were temperate forests north of the Arctic circle and tropical forests in the Appalachain Mtns. (West Virginia, USA)

  7. John says:February 17, 2010 at 12:47 amRupert said:

    “a procedure involving forensic logic, a concept clearly alien to them”

    Unfortunately, skeptics are guilty of the same thing. Too much bombast and not enough substance to this debate lately.

  8. Tom Forrester-Paton says:February 17, 2010 at 1:43 pmJohn, I think the remark you refer to is mine. Actually you’re right. I don’t think the Tree Ring Circus are strangers to the scientific method. In truth I think they knew very well that their work was bad science, but were so invested in the AGW industry that they chose to lie, dissemble and obfuscate to keep the grants and the plaudits coming.

    However, when you accuse sceptics of the same lack of rigour, you repeat the mistake made by so many warmists (and, I grant you, too many sceptics) that it is the job of sceptics to present counter-theories to their own. It is not. What matters is whether AGW survives proper scrutiny, not whether those scrutinising it can do any better. I wish sceptics would remember this, but the fact that some don’t doesn’t relieve proponents of AGW of their obligation to present their theories in the form of falsifiable argument. The Climategate emails and code reveal the excruciating efforts of the high priesthood of AGW to do just that, their continuing failure, and the lengths to which they went or were prepared to go to conceal their work, with all its inadequacies, from proper peer review.

    There, that wasn’t too bombastic, was it?

Climategate: The Whitewash Begins

Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen.

Here’s the (so far unconfirmed) story:

1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.

2) Foreign Office and government leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises Copenhagen.

3) CRU asked to prepare data for a pre-emptive release in past couple of days but trouble reconciling issues between data bases has stopped this.

The appointment of Lord Rees, if confirmed, is especially worrying. It’s the rough equivalent of appointing King Herod’s grand vizier to investigate a mysterious outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea.

First, Lord Rees – formerly Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal – is very much of the catastrophist mindset which helped launch the whole AGW scare in the first place. Five years ago, he declared:

“I think the odds are no better than 50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of the present century.”

Second, he has previously suggested that there might be certain areas where frank and open scientific enquiry is not a good idea.

“He asks whether scientists should withhold findings which could potentially be used for destructive purposes, or if there should be a moratorium, voluntary or otherwise, on certain types of scientific research, most notably genetics and biotechnology.”

Third, he is president of an institution – The Royal Society – which has persistently used its distinguished name (founded 1660); and supposed unimpeachable scientific authority to push AGW theory.
Here is the Royal Society’s most recent statement on the subject, brought out in the aftermath of the Climategate scandal.

The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As three of the UK’s leading scientific organisations involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.

I’m sure that Lord Rees will strive to be as scrupulously unbiased as he is possibly capable. But with a history like this behind him, I can’t say I am terribly reassured.

UPDATE: More on Lord Rees’s resolutely neutral position on AGW – as posted on the Bishop Hill blog.

Interview with Lord Rees:

“What one single thing convinces you most that climate change is taking place?

The main reason for concern is that the carbon dioxide level is rising by 0.5 per cent a year and is now at a level that it has not been at for the last half a million years. I think if we knew nothing else than that, there would still be great reason for concern.

What is the most important thing you are personally doing on climate change?

I am becoming more and more conscious of the need to avoid waste. I use a small economical car, for instance.

If you were the Prime Minister, what one thing would you do about climate change?

I think Tony Blair has already played an important role leading the G8 nations on the climate change issue. I think he was right to do this and the issue is now high on the international agenda. The recently published Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change will have an impact internationally as well as help the G8 nations move further on this subject.

Do you agree with the Bishop of London that “making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin”?

Bishops are experts in defining sins and I am not, but one change that may happen and I hope will happen over the next few years is that it will become socially unacceptable to be conspicuously wasteful.

There’s so much noise about climate change, are people in danger of becoming complacent?

It’s a difficult issue for the public because the downside is very long-term and is international, unlike pollution for instance, which people are concerned about because it affects their localities. The effects of carbon dioxide emissions are worldwide rather than local and the most severe effects will be far in the future. “

Yep. He’s going to come down hard on those CRU scientists all right. Just the man for the job!

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  2. Climategate: the Conservative backlash begins
  3. The Royal Society: too little, too late
  4. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash