April 30, 2011 1 Comment
First, we have a rigged UK parliamentary inquiry: a so-called bipartisan effort, but in reality chock-a-block full of Tory MPs who, like their leader David Cameron, believe in AGW theory. Many people have been under the misconception that the Tories are purely conservative; therefore, they must be AGW skeptics. But, the fact is that all major parties support it. The minority UK IP (Independence Party) is against it, as are some others.
With the parliamentary inquiry, both Labor and Tory MPs didn’t want to go too far with their criticisms. They just wanted to have something done quickly, to ensure that Climategate was not an election issue. As Gordon Brown and David Cameron both believe in AGW, it was in both their interests — the Tories especially — to get rid of this toxic political issue. It would certainly have cost the Tories votes if they were seen to be skeptics.
Therefore, the UK inquiry’s main conclusion was that the Climategate scientists had only been naive and disorganized, and that they had not done anything illegal. The inquiry largely took issue with the scientists’ record keeping and statistical methods, choosing to heap most of the blame on the IPCC.
The most bizarre part is that the inquiry concluded that AGW theory itself was “probably correct”, despite it not being part of their official investigation, and clearly beyond their expertise to judge! This of course revealed the true purpose of the inquiry — to defend AGW theory. The inquiry was meant to ascertain whether the CRU scientists mishandled data. It was not supposed to be a judgement on the current state of climate science.
Predictably, the mainstream media decided to spin the inquiry’s findings, reporting it as a total vindication of AGW theory. They took the statement “probably true,” and spun it into what amounted to a final word on the matter. In reality, the MPs found that there were many serious problems (both hiding and manipulation of data), but chose to be very kind with their conclusions. The most obvious sign that this inquiry was going to be a whitewash was that they purposely did not give themselves enough time to look at everything in detail, or to ask themselves the right questions.
Secondly, the Royal Society held their very own “inquiry”. This society has been an advocate of global warming alarmism for many years. The RS was originally a club for respected scientists; it was very prestigious to be a member. However, over time AGW believers infiltrated it. It’s therefore not surprising that their investigation ruled in favour of their own people.
This isn’t the first time that the RS has believed in pseudo-science, or weird theories. Just look at all the stuff that they believed in the 19th century. Back when you had RS members walking around espousing ‘phrenology’ and ‘miasma’! You could even argue that they’re simply upholding a proud tradition, of believing in the mainstream view — whether it’s scientifically correct or not.
However, it is important to note that in recent months, scientists have been speaking out about the role of the RS in scientific debates. They have been fighting to take back the society, to restore its scientific integrity, to reform what has become an advocacy group for a particular theory. It’s clear that the current Royal Society has business interests in AGW: “The panel has been accused of lacking independence. Lord Oxburgh, the chairman, has links to low-carbon energy companies that could profit from a cut in greenhouse gases. He is chairman of the wind energy company Falck Renewables as well as president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association.”
Thirdly, we have the University of East Anglia (where the CRU is housed) holding an inquiry into themselves! And, surprise, surprise, the result is — not guilty: “In the end, the Committee basically took the UEA scientists’ word for it, giving them the benefit of the doubt, and saying that the scientists were blameless. Even this committee, however, did find that “The leaked emails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU [the UEA’s Climate Research Unit] and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change skeptics.” ”
Finally, we have the latest and equally flawed Muir Russell inquiry, which, despite finding that there was wrongdoing, concluded that it wasn’t serious enough. There has never been a proper, unbiased and truly independent official investigation into Climategate. Like all the others, this was set up to pretend that they were independent and impartial, but the purpose was making the criticism go away. And, predictably, “our ABC” decided this would be the only time to cover Climategate — when they thought they could negate it.
“The six-month inquiry cleared the climate scientists of accusations that they manipulated their data, but criticised them for being too secretive and defensive about their research. It was alleged the researchers abused their positions to cover up flaws and distort the process that determines which scientific studies are published in journals and subsequently enter the official records. But the inquiry panel said it had not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
‘Climategate scientists cleared by British inquiry’
‘Sir Muir Russell’s review into the University of East Anglia’s climate emails’
‘Global warming: An inquiry that doesn’t look at the science cannot understand Climategate’
‘Decline of the Review’
‘Climate scientists cleared by inquiry’ April 15, 2010
‘Whitewashing is quick work!’
8 July, 2010