Silly Elizabeth May

Blog - No Comments » - Posted on April, 18 at 9:48 am

Again, from Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun:

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May complained on her blog last week that the Canadian media have not been reporting that two inquiries in the U.K. into Climategate have exonerated the academic institution and scientists at the centre of the storm.

This is too funny, because the only reason most Canadian media haven’t reported on this supposed ending of what May derisively refers to as the “so-called” Climategate scandal, is most of them never reported on Climategate to begin with.

Even if they did, having drunk deeply of the Kyoto Kool-Aid long ago, it was to haughtily pronounce from the very start that Climategate was a mere tempest in a teapot.

In other words: “Nothing to see here folks, let’s all just move along.”

In fact, three inquiries were ordered into Climategate in Great Britain, which refers to the unsanctioned release of thousands of e-mails and documents last November by some of the world’s leading climate researchers.

That happened when a thief or a whistleblower, depending on your point of view, hacked into the computer files of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the U.K.

The CRU’s work is the basis for many of the increasingly controversial findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about man-made global warming.

The most infamous e-mails came from CRU director Phil Jones about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperature data, plus discussing with colleagues ways to hide their data from Freedom of Information requests.

So far, two of the three inquires have reported.

The first was by a British parliamentary committee which heard one day of testimony from the principals in a country where both the government and opposition parties are at the very forefront of global warming hysteria.

The second was by a group of seven academics appointed by the University of East Anglia to investigate itself, the rather pompously named “International Science Assessment Panel.” This is the report to which May specifically refers in her blog.

This panel, according to its own description, apparently had some pleasant chats with some of the CRU researchers, during two visits to the university totalling “15 person-days,” while reviewing 11 of their published papers.

Unsurprisingly, the parliamentary committee — in a country where the majority Labour government has been among the most alarmist in the world about man-made climate change and is facing a tough election next month — exonerated Jones and the CRU, proclaimed climate science valid and found no attempts to deceive.

(Phrases like “trick” and “hide the decline,” it explained, were colloquial scientific talk for legitimate ways of dealing with aberrant data.)

While Jones himself admitted his record keeping could have been better, the committee conceded the university should been more open about sharing research, instead of trying to duck Freedom of Information requests.

These were similar to the findings of the University of East Anglia’s investigation into itself, although its report was even milder. It came from panel members chosen in consultation with the U.K.’s Royal Society, another bastion of mainstream climate science.

A third investigation headed by another academic has yet to report, but since it faced allegations from its inception of having a warmist bias, including the resignation of a member before it started, its results may be unsurprising, too.

Basically, then, we have three quickie investigations into Climategate dominated by politicians and scientists who overwhelmingly support mainstream climate science, two of which, so far, have “exonerated” arguably the world’s leading institution on which mainstream climate science is built.

Talk about: “Nothing to see here, folks, let’s all just move along.”

If May and Co. seriously want to convince an increasingly skeptical public, unlikely to accept the word of “wise elites” there was nothing to Climategate, let them do what they should have done from the start.

That is, call for an investigation, headed by a judge, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documents, with its own expert legal counsel, and with the ability to compel people to appear and testify under oath, and be cross-examined, with their own lawyer present, of course.

You know, kind of like a real public inquiry.

Posted in Blog | No Comments »

Comments are closed.