As CNN explains it; “An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked “Climategate” e-mails found no evidence to question the “rigor and honesty” of scientists involved.†That seems to be the general conclusion offered by Muir Russell, chairman of the select group of political insiders who conducted the review.
The review focused on “the behaviors of the scientists in the climatic research unit in the University of East Anglia,†which was at the center of the Climategate scandal. Russell provided a carefully worded public statement on the review.
“Those behaviors have been commented on in the light of a release – an improper release of emails in the autumn of 2009, not long before the Copenhagen conference. We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists. And that’s a comment about the processes that they went through to produce their work, to handle their data, to have their work peer-reviewed, and so on. A lot of what they do makes a big impact on the advice that goes to policy-makers, both domestically and internationally, and we concluded similarly that these behaviors that were the subject of criticism had not affected the impact on the policy advice. What we did however conclude was that they had not shown sufficient openness in the way in which they responded to requests for information about what they were doing, about the data they were processing, about the stations they were analyzing, and so on. And we’ve made a number of recommendations both for them and for the University of East Anglia in terms of how it manages its freedom of information process, and how it manages its risk process.â€Â
It’s a bit of a brain-sneezer to imply that the researchers operated generally as good and proper scientists in the way data was handled, their work was produced and reviewed, and then state that they were deficient in providing information essential to the processes. If the data can’t be confirmed and the details of work aren’t explained, it’s not science. A series of unsupportable statements promoting an idea isn’t science, it’s a marketing campaign.
In view of the facts, criticizing their work for insufficient openness is quite a downplay on the complete disregard for managing critical data that’s been clearly shown, the extended effort to hide real data, the extended effort to replace real data collected independently in various countries with their own fake data, and the critical data allegedly lost when the East Anglia operation came under public scrutiny.
The reviewers do comment on East Anglia’s Phil Jones’ email in which he explains that he used a “trick†to “hide the declineâ€Â; referring to the strategic use of unmatched data to hide drops in temperature to support alarmist “global warming theory.†They found that data submitted to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1999 was “misleading,†with important implications for the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. They then downplayed with more carefully worded spin. “Reconstructions†or “to splice data†is not misleading per se (ok, generally speaking), “but we believe that both procedures should have been made plain.â€Â
I will agree with Muir Russell’s statement on a couple of points. First, the behaviors exposed for a wider public via the Climategate emails did not damage my judgment of the integrity, the honesty, or the rigor with which the East Anglia group had operated as scientists. I was one of many who already had a good understanding of what was going on. The emails only provided additional confirmation of what was already known. The damage had already been done. My opinion of them could not have gotten any lower.
Secondly, I do not believe that the particular instances of misconduct highlighted by the Climategate emails had much “affected the impact on the policy advice.†Political insiders and knowledgeable scientists already knew that the “science†behind the global warming scare was fake. One might say that Climategate revelations may have impacted the effect without affecting the impact. (Is that double-talk enough for everyone?)
Andrew Montford, author of “The Hockey Stick Illusion,” said the report was pretty much as he had expected. “I don’t think anyone was expecting Russell to reach any other conclusions than the one he did. It was set up with a preordained conclusion in mind,” Montford told CNN.
But no matter how unlikely it is that the review will be seen as credible, warmers hope it can help resuscitate the dead horse that is their propaganda campaign, which comes as no surprise either. Literally, trillions of dollars are at stake and it was never thought that the scam would disappear easily.
Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at London’s Imperial College said: “It seems to me that we’ve had a lot of reviews, and yet again the science has come out as remarkably robust.†You have to admire his chutzpah, I guess, coming to that conclusion on the basis of reviews that haven’t probed into the science at all.
Michael Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick†representation of global warming used in Al Gore’s propaganda film was subject to a review at the University of Pennsylvania following Climategate. He was the originator of the “trick†used to “hide the decline†(thus producing a warming graph shaped like a hockey stick). Subjected to only a superficial review that did not actually probe into serious allegations of fraud (something in common with this new review), the resulting non-conclusions have been characterized by alarmists as Mann’s “vindication.â€Â
Mann also said he hoped the new report would put the “bogus, manufactured scandal behind us.” That is also quite unlikely. Perhaps unlike the UK, Americans will not passively accept neutering by PR. Pushed by the fact that Barack Obama produced global warming law by administrative rule (via the EPA), states are currently filing lawsuits and initiating investigations of their own. Several state legislatures have already issued resolutions against EPA enforcement. These investigations could be much more objective and probing and will undoubtedly include the work of Michael Mann. States may also investigate Mann and potentially prosecute alleged fraud in applications for research funding. Meanwhile, Al Gore is dodging a Senate investigation that could lead to criminal indictment.
