From the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)
Excerpt:
Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world’s leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called “a nice, tidy story” of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.
Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, “nothing to see here.” Last week “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,” commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia.
[…]One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”
Let’s assess the reliability of the “independent” reviews.
The Russell report states that “On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data.” Really? Here’s what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]”
Then there’s the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: “On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this.”
Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann’s work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.
But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: “I think we should stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that “I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.”
There’s billions of dollars of funding at stake in global warming alarmism – your money and mine. They’re not going to just give that up.
Read the whole thing. And thanks to ECM for finding it.
Related stories
- NASA admits that their data is worse than CRU Climate-gate data
- 19 points that undermine the claims of global warming alarmists
- UN IPCC global warming alarmism based on student essay and magazine article
- How the UN’s IPCC cites non-scientific claims from the World Wildlife Fund
- Chairman of UN’s IPCC used bogus claims to grab global warming cash
- Britain to be hit by coldest winter in 100 years
- Does global warming increase the frequency of hurricanes?
- Canadian government finds polar bear population up 163% since mid-1980s
- Polar bear populations are not decreasing now
- Russian economists accuse CRU of cherry-picking Russian temperature data
- UK Daily Mail summarizes the Climategate scandal
- Armed guard prevents questions on Climategate at UN conference
- Australian climate data also adjusted to hide the decline
- What does Climategate really prove about global warming?
- Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area
- Oceans are not warming now
- Polar ice caps are not melting now
WINTERY KNIGHT 