Monday, 6 September 2010



I recently came across a September 2010 report written by Andrew Montford for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "THE CLIMATEGATE INQUIRIES"   is worth reading (

As Lord Turnbull ( said in his forward to the report " .. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence .. ".

As I pointed out at the end of this article there were high hopes for the action taken by Kenneth Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, against the University of Virginia but these were dashed in a March by the decision of the Circuit Court of Albermarle County to QUOTE: .. set aside the CIDs with prejudice, on the different ground that the University of Virginia, as an agency of the Commonwealth, does not constitute a "person" under the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act and therefore cannot be the proper subject of a CID .. UNQUOTE (


In my articles of 13th May, 14th April and 30th March I commented on the politically inspired whitewashing of the UEA CRU following the leaking of E-mails in November. First there was the expected political whitewash by the UK’s Commons Science and Technology Committee following its perfunctory investigation over all of 4 weeks. Considering that UK politicians of all parties had given their almost unanimous support to the Climate Change Act 2008 nothing less than a whitewash could be expected.

Then there was the UEA’s “independent” review chaired by Lord Oxburgh, again a whitewash anticipated and sure enough, expectations were satisfied. After that we had the long-awaited report by the UEA’s own review team chaired by Sir Muir Russell.

The Internet was awash with extracts from the 9th July article in The Register (Note 1) which reported that QUOTE: "It's not a whitewash, but it is inadequate," is Labour MP Graham Stringer's summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications - he holds a PhD in Chemistry. .. Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry. Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations. This is a serious charge .. UNQUOTE.

Plenty would argue that Stringer is only half correct and that it certainly was a whitewash, however, it has to be recognised that although he has a well qualified scientist

It is worth noting that according to The Public Whip (Note 2) Stringer was absent from the Commons during voting on those important 2nd and 3rd readings and other aspects of The Climate Change Bill in 2008. It should also be noted that there is debate about whether or not Stringer has a post-graduate degree (Note 3).

It must not be overlooked that none of these enquiries have investigated the most important aspect of this whole fiasco, the validity of the conclusions drawn by scientists about global climates, past, present and future. Even the Oxburgh enquiry, set up by the University of East Anglia with the help of the Royal Society, did not review the science. This is despite the declaration in the 10th February “Memorandum submitted by the University of East Anglia” (Note 3) that QUOTE: .. Alongside Sir Muir Russell’s Review, we have decided on an additional scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself. The Royal Society has agreed to assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite experience, standing and independence UNQUOTE.

That was three whitewashes from within the confines of the UK but it has been no different on the other side of the Atlantic. Again, as to be expected, the Penn State’s internal investigation into Michael Mann’s activities was another whitewash (Note 4) just like the UEA’s internal enquiry.

There was a tiny glimmer of hope that the most recent investigation, by The Inter-Academy Council (Note 5), report “ into the IPCC would be thorough and unbiassed but these hopes were dashed when another whitewash appeared on 30th August (Notes 6 & 7).

I don’t need to do more here than quote from an excellent Daily Telegraph article of 4th September “A cunning bid to shore up the ruins of the IPCC, led by Rajendra Pachauri, tiptoes around a mighty elephant in the room, argues Christopher Booker”. QUOTE:

Last winter, the progress of this belief – that the world faces catastrophe unless we spend trillions of dollars to halt global warming – suffered an unprecedented reverse. In Copenhagen, the world's leaders failed to agree a treaty designed to reshape the future of civilisation. This coincided with a series of scandals that blew up around the IPCC's 2007 report. Since then several inquiries, including three into the leaked "Climategate" emails, have tried to hold the official line, all following a consistent pattern. Each has made a few peripheral criticisms, for plausibility, while deliberately avoiding the main issue. Each has then gone on to put over the required message: that the science of global warming remains unchallenged.

At first sight, last week's Inter-Academy report on the "processes and procedures of the IPCC" seems to have played it more cleverly. It criticises the IPCC's abuse of its own procedures in very trenchant terms, and suggests some radical reforms to them. Passages on "conflict of interest", and a recommendation that top officials should serve only one term, seem to hint that Dr Pachauri, reappointed to serve until 2014 after presiding over the IPCC's last controversial report, should step down. But, as with the reports that preceded it, this one also tiptoes round a mighty elephant in the room, in order to put over the familiar message: the IPCC has generally "served society well", the science remains unchallenged. It is as one might expect of a report produced on behalf of bodies such as Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, which have long been leading advocates for the belief in global warming.


Have a read of the full article then read A. W Montford’s excellent book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” for a thorough study of the background to this UN-inspired fiasco.

Maybe there is still a chance that a proper investigation will be undertaken, initiated by Virginia State Attorney Mr. Cuccinelli . Let's hope for a successful revised action which he is preparing following judge Paul M. Peatross Jr's recent ruling (Note 8).

1) see
3) see
4) see
5) see
6) see
7) see
8) " (see

Best regards,

1 comment:

  1. How could we have asked for more when he embodies the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in all completeness? Interestingly, he also strongly epitomizes the typical climate activist and their organizations that they are attached. Did he mould both in his image or its vice versa is however for history to judge.

    Next month 194 governments of the IPCC are scheduled to meet in Busan, South Korea. This is where a plot to ouster Pachuari could be unleashed. Pachuari remains defiant: “At the moment, my mandate is very clear. I have to complete the fifth assessment” The Indian Government who Pachuari is their candidate is equally defiant, backing him to the hilt. If Pachauri goes, we leave the IPCC! And if India leaves the IPCC, it can trigger an exodus.

    We launch our “Save Pachauri Campaign”. This is the least we can do for a Patriot of our country. He accomplished what climate sceptics were unable to do by functioning as our Trojan horse that effectively destroyed the IPCC from the inside. Write your support to Pachauri/TERI directly or pressurise WWF to executive an Adopt a Pachauri Programme as envisaged by sceptics.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Popular Posts