Latest:

Jul 9, 2010

Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults



Canadian Free Press
Dr. Tim Ball
July 9, 2010
There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity. The degree of cover up in both cases is an arrogant in-your-face statement that we are the power and are not answerable to anyone. Their cover up almost belittles the ones they are investigating.
Lord Oxburgh, a member of the House of Lords, chaired the first investigation. His bias and self-interest is barefaced and makes his appointment shameless in its temerity.  He is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, which believes carbon capture is potentially a trillion dollar industry. As James Delingpole reports “Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.” It’s as if they said who stands to gain the most by whitewashing what happened. The Club of Rome connection is most telling, because I have documented their role in initiating, identifying, and pursuing CO2 as the basis of capitalist destruction of the planet.
Oxburgh was appointed by UEA whose Pro-Vice Chancellor Professor Trevor Davies said he believed he would lead the investigation “in an utterly objective way.” We now know this means the objectivity was to ensure the false science claiming CO2 was causing global warming would be objectively maintained.
UEA consulted the Royal Society in selecting Oxburgh. They blithely ignored the fact he is a Fellow of the Society and that it had a track record heavily biased to supporting the false science of the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC).  The Society also ‘recommended’ the eleven academic papers to be considered. When Steve McIntyre, who was instrumental in exposing some of the major scientific falsehoods and deceptions exposed by the emails, asked Oxburgh, “a few simple questions about the terms of reference and documentation of this “inquiry”” he receivedremarkable answers that he summarized as follows; “The net result, as you will see, is that Oxburgh says that they have no documents evidencing the terms of reference of the inquiry or the selection of the eleven papers, no notes, transcripts or other documentation of the interviews with CRU employees and Oxburgh refused consent for panelists to directly provide me with any notes that they might have taken.

BRAZENNESS OF THE ENTIRE EXERCISE

Oxburgh brushes off the entire set of problems and in doing so exposes the brazenness of the entire exercise. “Given the seriousness of the allegations they wanted our inquiry to be completed as quickly as possible both for the benefit of the individuals concerned and for the University’s internal concerns as well as for their wider concerns about the science. The intention was to supplement the wider and more formal Muir Russell review that was already underway and which I believe will report later this year.” His report was simply to stanch the bleeding while the larger whitewash was underway. Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics, expressed the concern about the projected spring 2010 publication date. “This is probably necessary to allow a thorough investigation, but it does mean that those who are using ‘climategate’ as a propaganda tool for their own political ends might be able to enjoy many more weeks of mischief-making.”
Yes, they might start asking questions and putting doubt in the public’s mind.  It might jeopardize the entire global climate scam that is designed to undermine capitalism and replace it with one-world government and total control over everyone in the world.
Sir Muir Russell was chosen chief investigator of the second committee because as a career bureaucrat he had established a reputation of finding what was required. True, he had no connection to the university or the climate science community, but all that meant was he was easily manipulated and controlled. Evidence of his naiveté appeared quickly with the first people chosen to help the investigation? One was the editor of the journal Nature with disturbing connections to CRU and Climategate who sensibly withdrew. The other was Geoffrey Boulton who failed to disclose connections to the UEA. Despite this, Russell kept him on the committee. As Bishop Hill reportsBoulton said, in effect, that he had tricked poor Muir Russell. While Russell may have intended to “select” Team members on “the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science”, Boulton had a different idea.
It is no surprise the final report is a complete whitewash. As McIntyre notes, “They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh.” There’s that Royal Society connection again. The report exploits lack of knowledge or understanding of climate science just like the CRU and IPCC. They couldn’t allow involvement of experts who knew the science and how it was manipulated.
But the omissions are more basic and ones everyone can understand. For example, why didn’t they trace the source of the leaks? Why were only some of the emails leaked? Russell’s report chastises CRU for failing to provide data on request and for being secretive or refusing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. What drove them to do this with information obtained and produced by public funding? It doesn’t matter how much climate science you understand, the level and extent of avoidance goes beyond laziness, time consumption as they tried to claim or any other excuse. Ironically, Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, provides the answer in his email response to Warwick Hughes request for information on how he produced the claim that global temperatures had risen 0.6°C since the end of the 19th century. This claim, with the falsified hockey stick, was central to the 2001 IPCC Report used as the scientific basis for global warming. Jones replied on 21st February 2005, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Jones never disclosed the information and then said it was lost. These actions were symptomatic of the entire activities at the CRU and then the IPCC. Those using human induced global warming for political and economic ends could not allow anyone to find there was something wrong with the data or the method. Instead they laugh in our faces with the most transparent, manipulated brazen cover up possible.



_____________________


More:  Never Mind the Climategate Whitewash – What About Our New £50 Billion Annual Climate Bill?

So the Sir Muir Russell inquiry into Climategate was, pretty much, a whitewash. But then we’d already guessed that. The danger with all these official cover-ups – reported with salivating glee by the Warmists’ drooling useful idiots in the Mainstream Media – is that they distract from the main point.

And the main point, at least as far as British taxpayers are concerned is this: under the terms of the 2008 Climate Change Act we are the only country in the world legally committed to making swinging reductions in CO2, the harmless trace gas which helps plants grow and which we really need more of not less in order to soften the blow of the imminent global cooling.

How much is this lunacy going to cost us? The figure which used to be quoted was £18 billion per annum. Apparently this has now more than doubled.'
Read more...