Climategate Whitewash Complete: Third Inquiry Clears
University vice chancellor hopes "conspiracy
theories" will now end
A third and final inquiry into the climategate scandal has exonerated
everyone involved and declared that there is no question over
the science behind manmade global warming - even though, like
its predecessors, it has not investigated the science.
The so called "independent" inquiry into scientists
at The University of East Anglia's Climate research Unit found
that "Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in
It further noted "We did not find any evidence of behavior
that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC."
The full report can be downloaded
The university's vice chancellor, Edward Acton, said the report
had exonerated his staff and he hoped it would end the "conspiracy
theories and untruths" that have dogged the unit, reports
Of course this conclusion is hardly surprising given that,
as we have previously reported, the so called "independent"
investigation was led by Sir Muir Russell - a
vehement supporter of the notion of anthropogenic
While absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected
to climate science, Russell is intimately involved with
Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement,
lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing
carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global
economy and living standards.
This organization has been even more vehement than national
governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global
warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the
short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
For the climategate inquiry, Russell constructed a
panel of "experts" that share exactly the same views,
clearly contradicting the founding principle of the inquiry
- to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined
view on climate change and climate science”.
Russell has called for "a concerted and sustained campaign
hearts and minds" to restore confidence in
the CRU scientists.
Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the scandal,
will now be reinstated in his role at the CRU,
despite the fact that the investigation concluded that some
of Jones' data was misleading and that he failed to act openly
in response to questions about climate data lodged under Britain's
freedom of information laws.
"We found a tendency to answer the wrong question or to
give a partial answer," the report said.
Indeed, among the thousands of emails that were leaked from
the CRU were communications from Jones specifically asking his
colleagues to delete information from their computers that may
have called the science behind their findings into question.
Yet, as reported in the London
Guardian today, "extraordinarily, it emerged
during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones
or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."
The report also parroted the findings of The
House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee Report (PDF),
released last March after just a single day of oral testimony.
Like the government's report, the "independent" inquiry
found nothing sinister in Jones' use of the words "hide
the decline" and "trick" with regards to data
on temperature changes obtained from tree ring research.
The independent inquiry even used the exact same wording as
the government report to dismiss the notion, claiming that the
use of the word "trick" may have been shorthand for
a "neat mathematical approach" to ejecting erroneous
The STC pulled this explanation from testimony by the CRU itself,
...as for the (now notorious) word ‘trick’, so
deeply appealing to the media, this has been richly misinterpreted
and quoted out of context. It was used in an informal email,
discussing the difficulties of statistical presentation. It
does not mean a ‘ruse’ or method of deception.
In context it is obvious that it is used in the informal sense
of ‘the best way of doing something’. In this
case it was ‘the trick or knack’ of constructing
a statistical illustration which would combine the most reliable
proxy and instrumental evidence of temperature trends.
Scientist Steve McIntyre, who is mentioned over 100 times in
the leaked emails has consistently
explained how this explanation is insufficient
and falls flat on its face.
On his blog, Climate
Audit, McIntyre notes:
"Contrary to [the University of East Anglia's] claims,
there is no valid statistical procedure supporting the substitution
of tree ring proxy,"
"This is absurd." McIntyre added, "The trick
was not a “neat” way of handling data, nor a recognized
form of statistical analysis. The trick was a clever way of
tricking the readers of the IPCC 2001 graphic into receiving
a false rhetorical impression of the coherency of proxies –
a point understood at the beginning by Jon Stewart of the Daily
Show, but now misunderstood due to continued disinformation."
McIntyre points out that at no time did even the CRU itself
contend that any of its data was erroneous, so to conclude that
it had to dispose of such data is ludicrous:
In addition, their suggestion that Jones and others were
doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be
erroneous” is simply absurd. There was no testimony
to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the
tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was
“erroneous” – the data is what it is. The
tree ring data goes down instead of up – but that doesn’t
make it “erroneous”. It only means that the data
is a bad proxy – something that was concealed from IPCC
McIntyre submitted notes to the Science and Technology Committee
on this very detail of the matter, however, his detailed description
was either completely ignored or disregarded.
The idea that the "trick" was not to conceal data
that was out of step with the scientists warming thesis also
falls down when you consider that the
code within the CRU's climate models prove that temperature
numbers were “artificially adjusted”
to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.
information was leaked along with the inflammatory
emails referring to it and provides the real smoking gun. However,
predictably, there has been no mention of the coding in the
any of the inquiries.
The Russell review said it was not
misleading to omit part of the tree ring temperature series
but the process should have been made plain in the graph which
showed global temperature rises, and which was used in an influential
report published in 1999 by the World Meteorological Organisation
Again, like the parliamentary report before it, the Russell
review also dismissed further allegations leveled at the CRU,
including the suggestion the emails proved the scientists were
the peer review process and operating within a
culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data
Those charges arose following disclosure of Phil Jones' comment
to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University:
keep them out (of journals) somehow -- even if we have to redefine
what the peer-review literature is!" in reference
to scientific papers they disagreed with.
The leaked emails highlighted CRU scientists routinely referring
to any research offering alternate viewpoints as "disinformation","misinformation"
that needed to be kept out of the public domain.
As the London
Guardian notes, The Russell report described such
actions and descriptions by Jones and the CRU as "robust"
and "typical of the debate that can go on in peer review".
"In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis
of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review."
Fred Pearce writes. "And it investigated only two instances
where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director
Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions
as IPCC authors to sideline criticism."
Once again it will be left to the alternative media and blogs
to expose another whitewash report, given that the vast majority
of the corporate mainstream media is running with headlines
along the lines of "Investigation Clears Climate Scientists"
and "Warming Science Vindicated", headlines
that will be repeated ad infinitum by warmists, carbon trading
scam artists and eco-fascists everywhere.
Another separate "independent" inquiry, led by Lord
Oxburgh, former chair of the science and technology select committee,
also cleared the CRU scientists of any wrong doing in April.
However, its findings have since been questioned given that
Oxburgh admitted that it also "didn't
investigate the science."
Reading: Climategate Archive
Jones LIVE, A Fourth Hour Of Streaming TV Now Added To The Infowars
Click here to get your subscription today!