Bishop Hill explains the ‘findings’ of the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the reviews into the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit’s (CRU) e-mails, a key part of the Climategate scandal.
To describe this latest report as another bucket of whitewash is an understatement. Andrew Montford, the author of the Bishop Hill blog, covers some of the assertions of the Committee members and sums it up thus:
The best that can be said of the report is that it is marginally better than expected. This, I suppose, is the great advantage of low expectations. My impression is of a group of people who know they are raising two fingers to the general public, and feel forced at least to admit that there is something amiss, but the overwhelming need to hold the line on global warming gets the better of them and leaves them looking at best foolish and at worst outright criminal.
Once you have read Montford’s post on this, do take a few moments to absorb his follow up post that shows a proposed amendment to be included in the report. Despite this amendment being proposed by the only MP on the committee with a scientific qualification and understanding of scientific rigour, Graham Stringer, it was voted down by the other three MPs present, all of whom are wet behind the ears having been elected for the first time at the 2010 General Election:
There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. 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. The composition of the two panels hasbeen criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. 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. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most [serious] allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.
This paragraph should not be forgotten, it is a damning indictment that should be trailed as widely as possible.
What possible reason could the three MPs, Gregg McClymont, Stephen Metcalfe and Stephen Mosley have for rejecting this paragraph proposed by an experienced scientist and parliamentarian? We seem to have moved on from ‘hide the decline’ to ‘cover up the truth’.