Bishop Hill SciTech media coverage
Jan 25, 2011 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament I'll post coverage of the SciTech Committee's report here. Click on the names of the publications for links to the original articles.
The University of East Anglia’s Climategate inquiries were not sufficiently transparent and failed to properly investigate some key issues, the Commons Science and Technology Committee has concluded.
A UK parliamentary report on the so-called ‘Climategate’ email theft has expressed “some reservations” about two independent inquiries into the incident. However, the House of Commons science select committee says it is now time to implement the inquiries’ recommendations and move on.
TWO inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive.
Inquiries into issues raised by 2009's climate e-mail hack did have flaws, a committee of MPs concludes.
But despite questions over remits and omissions, they say it is time to make the changes needed and move on.
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.
David Holland's thoughts are here. Also Ross McKitrick has his own report on the inquiries.
Bishop Hill
A committee of MPs has described two independent inquiries into the ‘climategate scandal’ as ‘unsatisfactory’ because they failed to answer important questions about allegedly missing emails.
Bishop Hill
Andrew Montford, who produced a report critical of the Russell and Oxburgh enquiries, said MPs had failed to examine the allegations of intellectual corruption – the knobbling of the "peer review" process. He told us:
If peer review is bent against the skeptical scientists, then there's a question mark over the whole IPCC process. The defence made on their behalf is flimsy to the point of vanishing, their word is accepted every time. None of the reports have investigated the basic allegations raised by the emails.
Reader Comments (15)
"But Andrew Montfort, a climate "sceptic" who wrote a report on the inquiries for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, chaired by Lord Lawson, said the public did not yet know whether science from CRU could be trusted.
"[Moving on] may be what suits most politicians, but the public deserve to know the truth," he said.
"The committee have turned a blind eye to the abundant evidence of wrongdoing at UEA and in the 'ClimateGate' inquiries." "
Spot on.
Forgot to add. From the BBC
"it is time to make the changes needed and move on"
Pass the whitewash bucket Mi'Lord!
Just what anyone would expect from Black and the crowd! By the way, I was wondering the other day, does Black still email his articles to J.A. for approval before handing them over to the BBC editors?
From the report itself
"The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. "
So we are not quite in moving on territory yet.
I should clarify that this is via David Holland's post, and comes from the minutes showing amendments from Graham Stringer on para 98, which differs from the final report para 98.
Intriguing.
Ah ha! You posted this already! I will wake up in a minute.
"Move on"
That phrase on its own betrays the degree to which people have been nobbled. It's as clear a secret club membership signal as rolling up a trouser leg and doing a funny handshake.
Quelle suprise! Nature and BBC both happen to focus on the call to 'move on'. Just thinking alike or working hand in glove?
That's right Richard Black. Play it down, sweep it under the carpet, then carry on as if nothing happened. Erase if from the record, Consign it to the bin of history, Use it as your rationale for disregarding the serious question marks over CRU ever again. Reset the clock to year zero in order to continue your cheap propaganda effort, brainwashing of an unquestioning public and indulge your personal beliefs rather than the facts.
It is interesting how this is reported
BBC : 'hack', ,Nature: 'theft'
Anyone have any idea of their editorial line on Climate Change(tm)?
Don't forget El Reg (where the Bishop gets a namecheck)..
The Register
The changes that are needed is an entire redo. It seems best to me to start over form scratch. if Jones and company can't even find some of the data that their projections/climate models are based on, then we need to redux. This would never hold up in a court of law. The shabby "evidence" that is the basis for their work is missing. There is no smoking gun. This case would get thrown out of court.
Great work A. W. Montford!
And of course, now that the enquiries are done and the Parliamentary committee has finally published its definitive report we turn to…
… The police.
Was it a ‘hack’ or a ‘leak’.
Hello. Calling Norfolk police. Let's be having you.
Let's just move on.
At Climate Audit, http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/24/sci-tech-committee-again/
Steve McIntyre states that he put in a FOI request for the missing e-mails from UAE which was refused on the grounds that the UEA no longer had the documents. Yet Muir Russell had gotten “verbal reassurance” from VC Acton that the emails still exist and can be produced. It would be interesting if some UK news reporters also make the same request and if necessary follow up with formal complaints the the FOI police. Does anyone have any contacts that can instigate this?
Good to see that the Grauniad has so much to say on the topic. Not.