- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report for sceptic thinktank rules | Environment | guardian.co.ukNone of the three official inquiries into the illegal release of climate emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) showed a "serious concern for the truth", according to a report commissioned by Lord Lawson's sceptical thinktank.
The report, which has been criticised for "bias", contends that none of the inquiries were objective and comprehensive and that public confidence in climate science would not be restored until a thorough investigation is carried out.
Lord Lawson called the three official inquiries, one by the House of Commons science and technology select committee and two commissioned by the university, "highly defective". But he has consistently refused to reveal the identities of the donors behind the secretive Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) which paid for the report.
The inquiry's author, Andrew Montford, criticised the previous inquiries for not investigating the most serious allegations and for failing to ask key questions. For example, Prof Phil Jones, the head of UEA's climatic research unit, had been criticised for writing emails about deleting emails that were apparently the subject of a freedom of information act (FoI) request. He has denied deleting any emails to avoid FoI requests, but the main inquiry into the emails conducted by Sir Muir Russell never asked him or any of the other scientists about this.
Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog, also criticised the MPs' inquiry and a third review led by Lord Oxburgh, for failing to address an allegation of fraud relating to a paper that Jones published in 1990.
Lord Lawson called the three official inquiries, one by the House of Commons science and technology select committee and two commissioned by the university, "highly defective". But he has consistently refused to reveal the identities of the donors behind the secretive Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) which paid for the report.
Says it all really
'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report for sceptic thinktank rules | Environment | guardian.co.uk
This is just another case of a conspiracy theorist screaming "I KNOW there is something in there!! You lot are just hiding it from me!!"
I mean how many inquiries must there be before these people are satisfied?
Climategate has been very effectively swept under the rug. Good example of how powerful lib media is.
Or, maybe, nothing fraudulent actually happened and even a cursory investigation of the context of those emails spells that out quite plainly.
Do you have any idea how many assumptions you have to make to consider those emails proof of fraud?
I just don’t know what to say, it’s like we live on two different planets, we could see the same car wreck and put opposite drivers at fault. No point in discussing this really.
Or, maybe, nothing fraudulent actually happened and even a cursory investigation of the context of those emails spells that out quite plainly.
Do you have any idea how many assumptions you have to make to consider those emails proof of fraud?
None... It's pretty openly discussed issues of corruption.
The fact of the matter with the leaking of these emails is how they had been painstakingly edited in order to protect the identity of the leaker.
Someone is not going to go through this type of effort for hundreds of pages of emails because there was nothing going on.
It wasn't a leak, it was a hack. Someone broke in and pulled every email with certain key words.
Like I said, the "open discussion of corruption" requires you to make some assumptions about context. Assumptions that prove false given closer attention.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?