The UK Parliamentary Committee was always going to be a whitewash. They put no skeptics on the committee; they interviewed no skeptics; they didn’t ask Steven McIntyre to speak. The chairman was the “impartial” Phil Willis, who had already made up his mind in January and announced it in the Telegraph:
“There are a significant number of climate change deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science that has been changed or at worst manipulated. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so the public can see what they are saying”
It’s no wonder the committee made a spin-like press release with wishy-washy weasel words. What’s amazing is that under the spin, they can’t help but bust all of modern climate science.
The UK report: [press release]
“The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.
We were looking in the wrong spot. We don’t think Phil ought to get busted for just doing what all the other sloppy, biased scientists do. He did hide data, but so does everyone else. The whole of climate science has bogus practices that need to change.
It’s official: common practices across all climate science are so poor they need to change.
The UK Report:
Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible:… [para 51]
We here in the once-Great British Isles are now happy to accept getting most of the data instead of the full complete set. From now on, we will also accept most of the receipts for your tax returns instead of the original copies, and we will accept most of the receipts of government ministers on working trips to Barbados. Near enough is good enough. With trillions of dollars at stake, it’s no time to get fussy.
The UK Report
[T]he results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.
The results of the EAU agree with data sets around the world that are also sloppy, incomplete, unverifiable, and by NASA’s own email disclosures, even worse than the EAU’s. This meets the standards of the British Government.
Memo to the people of birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and the home of Newton: As all your trusted traditions and standards of excellence fade into mediocrity, and you give your disposable income to Goldman Sachs, the UK government hopes you will bear it with a stiff upper lip and no backbone at all.
Let’s be clear people. We don’t need a committee to tell us that a scientist who makes statements like these is deceitful:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline.
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith regarding the latest IPCC report? Keith will do likewise. …Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
There were thousands of e-mails, but we don’t need thousands. They are old news to skeptics, but we need to repeat the ones that matter in letters to editors, phone calls to friends, messages to ministers, and blog comments. Imagine if the words above came from a politician about the national budget how they would not be front page news. Imagine how the public would react. Count the days it would take before he was sacked. Thanks to carbon trading, this is is the national budget. Worse, it’s an international trading scheme.
We are supposed to trust these scientists. They have lost the global data sets. We don’t need to say any more. There is no recovering from that one simple point.
We don’t need a committee to tell us that this is bogus, and nor do the public. The citizens of the free world just need to hear the quotes. They understand that when someone hides a decline, there is no other interpretation. The researcher is concealing something he doesn’t want you to see.
Here’s how it works in government-run climate science “results”:
If the results don’t work the way you want, you can adjust them.
If people want to check those results, you can lose them.
If you get caught losing and adjusting them, you can always count on the committee results to whitewash it.
Wait until you hear this.
There is a second inquiry into ClimateGate and Andrew Orlowski has discovered that the man in charge, Lord Oxburgh, is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.
The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents – and has failed to declare it.
James Delingpole and Bishop Hill have the wrap on the conflicts of interest and power plays in the second committee, and how the GLOBE company was set up to avoid FOI’s. It’s more brazen than you can imagine…It’s an organisation of legislators run as a private company, and funded by…wait for it…”International Organisations, Governments, Parliamentary Bodies and Industry, both financially and politically, with particular acknowledgement to United Nations, The Global Environment Facility, The World Bank, European Commission, the Governments of Canada and Great Britain, the Senate of Brazil and Globe Japan.”
In 2007, it had a budget of £850,000 and the 2007 accounts also refer to creating “a forum for legislators and business leaders to discuss the 2012 climate agreement, illegal logging and related issues”. What 2012 climate agreement?
Phillip #4 points out that I was conglomerating two different enquiries. I wrote:
They tried to put people on the committee like Phillip Campbell, who had already pronounced it was a done deal and ClimateGate a non-event.
But Phillip Cambell was to have been on the Sir Muir Russell inquiry. The HoC inquiry chaired by Phil Willis was made up of MPs. Thanks to Phillip for the correction.