Another Report into Climategate

Climategate was the scandal that erupted in the lead-up to Copenhagen resulting from the release of over one thousand emails detailing correspondence between leading climate scientists exposing conspiracy and collusion including how to stack review committees, exaggerate warming trends, and avoid the disclosure of sensitive information. 

Today in the UK, the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology released its second report into the scandal:

According to David Holland, this report is one for which it definitely makes sense to start by reading the ending first.   On page 39, the Committee minutes show that of its eleven members only five met to consider and approve the final report.   Graham Stringer MP proposed that paragraph 98 be rewritten as below, but was in a minority of one against three with the Chairman not voting:

“The disclosure of data from the Climatic Research  Unit has been a traumatic and challenging experience for all involved and to the wider world.   There are proposals to increase worldwide  taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held.

“The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”

Read more from Mr Holland here:


Its worth noting that the Committee has published the unsolicited evidence it received after announcing that it planned to interview Russell and Oxburgh.  It is here:
I think historians will wonder how climate scientists managed to get away with it for so long.

And in a paper entitled,

Environmental Law and Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, pgs 3-12

John Abbot and I draw on evidence from David Holland to show scientist at both the CRU and the Met Office are part of a culture antagonistic towards disclosure of information and why this has serious implications for both the effective operation of FoI legislation and the openness and transparency of climate change assessments.

23 Responses to Another Report into Climategate

  1. Luke January 25, 2011 at 10:55 pm #

    So tedious – a number of independent reconstructions have derived the same results and exposed several faux sceptic hoaxes.

  2. Patrick Keane January 26, 2011 at 3:02 am #

    @Luke January 25th, 2011 at 10:55 pm

    Your global warming edifice is toppling.

    There are amazing repositioning statements coming out from some of the worst AGW alarmists. One of the comments to Bishshop Hill’s blog recent post sums it up nicely:-


    It’s encouraging to see this from these people.. until now this has been a poorly kept industrial secret, but the cynic in me concurs with Ian E, that this is alibi-generation.

    All of these familiar names – Beddington, Pope, Watson (von Storch isn’t associated with the same British climate hierarchy) – getting their revised positions out early, so very much in accordance with each other, suggests to me that these figures are moving into job-rescuing mode. They didn’t ascend to their positions by being ignorant of the direction of flow of the tide of impetus.

    It’s important to recognise that this activity – distancing themselves from, and even condemning unqualified alarmism – denotes an important shift. It IS a snarl, regardless of the toothlessness of the Parliamentary report. It is impossible to glean anything but displeasure with and disappointment in the performance and current state of British climate sciences in this ST report.

    Unhesitating, unquestioning support for the actions and activities of British climate scientists involved in advocacy research has suddenly faded from Parliament. Alarmism is dead, and realism and honest scientific endeavour must be reasserted. Beddington, Pope and Watson know which side they need to be on to retain their positions, and it is not on the side of the alarmists.


    read the post in full from the Bish:-

    They are shifting in response to the recently published MP committee revue on Climategate, the absolutely a-ripping extract in the Mail re Peter Sisson’s book on his time in the BBC:-

    Plus of course the fact that the weather is getter colder over the last three UK winters and only 15% of the UK pop believe AGW is occurring.



  3. el gordo January 26, 2011 at 6:55 am #

    After many years of unadulterated propaganda, what did we really expect from simple minded bureaucrats and boffins?

    Peter Sissons hangs the British Brainwashing Corporation out to dry.

  4. val majkus January 26, 2011 at 7:03 am #

    a link to Jen’s paper
    and an editorial referring to it
    I’ll make a comment later after reading

  5. Neville January 26, 2011 at 8:05 am #

    I see Luke still won’t admit he’s been wrong for years, unlike the Csiro.

    They at least admitted a couple of months ago that the drought in Qld was the result of El Ninos and natural weather.

    Poor old Luke still searching in a fog of ignorance enhanced by religious bigotry for that long lost signal.

    Anyhow the Bolter sheets home a cumupance for all the dopes in todays column and boy didn’t he have plenty of ammunition to use and all supplied by the dopes themselves.

  6. Luke January 26, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    And that proves the point – a torrent of abuse and no facts. Thanks guys. Exactly the point. An unmitigated attack on science and scientists by right wing luddites and ninnies.

    Quoting a rightist loudmouth like Bolt as some sort of evidence. ROFL ^^2

  7. hunter January 26, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    It is odd that the Luke simply asserts that skeptics are right wingers.
    Is it reasonable to assume then that true believers and profiteers in the AGW community are lefties?
    And since many skeptics are in fact science educated- engineers, physicists, climate scientists, meteorologists, statisticians, geologists, etc. etc. etc., perhaps it is time to point out to Luke and his ever more shrill colleagues that claiming skeptics are anti-science is just another effort that has backfired? That the more the Luke’s of the world insist on calling skeptics nasty slanders, the only result is a loss of credibility by the accuser?
    Luke- the party is over. You picked the side that was wrong.
    But your gang is probably vested in a nice fat pension, so stop the hysteria.

  8. val majkus January 26, 2011 at 9:55 am #

    A very detailed study by JOHN ABBOT and Jennifer (to which I linked above) and this is the conclusion.
    This case study provides evidence that there is a culture of antagonism towards anyone who may wish to make independent appraisals of information relating to climate change and particularly if it relates to variations in global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions. This … is shown through both the CRU emails and the approach to Mr Holland’s request to the Met Office. The reluctance to comply with the Fol legislation does not result from bureaucratic misunderstanding of relatively recently enacted legislation. Instead it stems from an antagonism by institutional climate scientists towards those who may wish to independently examine evidence for climate change and its causes. The dangers revealed lie both in operating an effective Fol system, and openness and transparency in an area of immense scientific importance. Governments around the world have relied on the outcome from these scientific assessments to justify far reaching economic interventions. This makes it all the more important for the climate research community through the Met Office to make this information publicly available including to Mr Holland under the FolA.
    Both Climate Audit and WUWT have had posts on this recently
    The WUWT article is about the press release by The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) stating ‘it remains deeply concerned about the failure by academic and parliamentary inquires to fully and independently investigate the ‘Climategate’ affair’
    GWPF says ‘The latest follow-up report by the Science and Technology Committee on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) confirms that the Climategate inquiries had serious flaws, lacked balance and transparency and failed to achieve their objective to restore trust and confidence in British climate science.’

    And without that trust and confidence what does British climate science have left?

  9. val majkus January 26, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    Patrick and el gordo thanks for those informative links
    O/T But Tony has another of his energy posts up link
    More Renewable Power Plants leads to an increase in Carbon Dioxide Emissions.

    It’s based on US data but is well worth a read – the message ‘renewable energy is inefficient and costly and does not achieve it’s purported purpose’ (my words – not Tony’s)

  10. Jennifer Marohasy January 26, 2011 at 10:28 am #


    “Its worth noting that the Committee has published the unsolicited evidence it received after announcing that it planned to interview Russell and Oxburgh. It is here:

    I think historians will wonder how climate scientists managed to get away with it for so long.”

  11. Peter Wilson January 26, 2011 at 10:37 am #


    “a torrent of abuse and no facts”–oh really! A great many “facts” (actually scientific observations) are frequently posted and linked, both here and on other similar blogs, which will provide all the evidence you claim is missing

    Oh but one thing. You won’t be able to understand this if you continue to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and yell “I’m not listening” like a child. Of course I’m not totally sure you do this, but your blog posts certainly read that way.

  12. val majkus January 26, 2011 at 11:02 am #

    Thanks Jen for that update link and I agree with the comment about what historians will wonder
    And my question remains ‘without … trust and confidence what does British climate science have left?’
    Maybe the IPCC should start to put disclaimers on its publications

  13. Luke January 26, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    Reality – independent constructions show results stand. Faux sceptic ruse arguments = bunk.

    Alternative lines of evidence show the same story.

    After all the politics and intrigue 95% stands.

    Extremist faux sceptics now with a big dose of denialist religion keep digging. “Surely we must be able to pin something on them”.

    All you’ve learnt is that quite a number of climate scientists hate faux sceptics with a passion. Why – probably the sheer dishonesty. The implicit ill will and threat to harm.

    See “hunter” as the example.

    There has been NO evidence presented here – ZERO !

    You see if it really was over – you guys wouldn’t be still talking about it – would you?

    It’s far from over. Just beginning in fact.

  14. val majkus January 26, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    Luke the sad point in relation to your response

    Reality – independent constructions show results stand. Faux sceptic ruse arguments = bunk.

    Alternative lines of evidence show the same story.

    After all the politics and intrigue 95% stands.


    Where are the links? and where’s the evidence

  15. Malcolm Hill January 26, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    “All you’ve learnt is that quite a number of climate scientists hate faux sceptics with a passion. Why – probably the sheer dishonesty. ”

    Says the all knowing Luke.

    Well dear dear …lets have a stamp of our little tootsies shall we, and go crying to mummy.

    Just what is faux sceptic anyway..who ever these are people.. then quite number of climate scientists hate them…claims Luke…sniff sniff

    Given that it is up to the climate scientist themselves to present the case….then who are these people.?

    Come on evidence please.?

    If they havnt got either the balls or the brains to present the case in a proper manner then perhaps they should go and get another job .

    As for being dishonest then perhaps they should also look in the mirror on the way out .

    As a tax payer I am sick of the crap that gets peddled and the petulant nature of their responses, and the way academe can hide behind shields of it own making in a way that no other domain can or is allowed to.

    But being told they hate me, and thousands and thousands of others just because we are sceptical of their claims and always have been is the absolute pits.

    So come Walker produce your evidence and let it be put before the appropriate authorities

  16. val majkus January 26, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    Malcolm if they haven’t found the evidence by now with all that money spent what’s the chance it will ever be found?
    But given Luke’s next post is about AGW the evidence might be there
    I haven’t seen it anywhere else
    Maybe …..
    AND I think someone is offering a reward for it! Maybe someone else can provide the link

  17. Luke January 26, 2011 at 7:05 pm #

    “and always have been ” yea – sums it up

  18. el gordo January 26, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    ‘You see if it really was over – you guys wouldn’t be still talking about it – would you?
    It’s far from over. Just beginning in fact.’

    It’s true, Luke, there are a number of hurdles to jump. A nasty change in the weather, which doesn’t fit the AGW rhetoric, will be the first cab off the rank. Followed shortly after by the MSM, which has just discovered a new disaster to chase after.

    As it stands now, I’m getting a fabulous education and it’s free.

  19. John Sayers January 26, 2011 at 9:32 pm #

    So Jeff Id has closed his blog, no doubt because he has no more to say – it’s over Luke – your religion is now just another failed religion – just like the the 7th day adventists and other lefty hopefuls.

    I see Jo Nova is now tiring from posting continuous posts on how wrong the AGW religion is and I don’t blame her – I’m getting sick of reading about it.

    But Luke will continue on being the dickhead he is as that’s the way he was programmed by his hippie parents just as I programmed by son who is now a lefty fanatic who de-friended me on facebook because I was a sceptic.

  20. Malcolm Hill January 27, 2011 at 6:53 am #

    Still waiting for the Great Faux Scientist to produce his evidence…but just like his mates in climataria central …all talk and no substance.

  21. Malcolm Hill January 27, 2011 at 8:47 am #

    People like the GFS may not like Bolt as an journalist but at least he has the guts to report the straight truthful and unadulterated facts..which is more than his cabal of faux scientists can do.

    What a joke this lot are….and to think they are all being paid by the tax payers to produce this sort of expensive, inconsistent and illogical rubbish..and their “advice’ has already cost us billions.

  22. hunter January 27, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Luke’s defensive efforts are historically sound. They are the same tactics used by defenders of Eugenics back in the day.
    Of course multiple studies done using the same crap data, the same crap algorithms run by the same CO2 obsessed people get the same results.
    Anything to distract the failure of climate science to help people deal with the weather.
    If Kyoto had been fully implemented, would the recent fires and floods in Australia been prevented?
    Was climate science able to help plan the improvements of the dams or the bush management techniques to prevent flood or fire losses?
    Yet, after the fact, climate opportunists run around saying they predicted the events- of historical nature size and scale- are ‘consistent with global warming/climate change.
    And of course bureaucrats like the Luke are happy to defend it. After all, it is a good gig.

  23. jimmoque January 31, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    Luke: ‘You see if it really was over – you guys wouldn’t be still talking about it – would you?’

    Whoa! After copping your triumphalist BS for years when you had God on your side, you think we’re not going to hang around and watch you squirm. Plus we need to plough salt into the earth to stop you cockroaches breeding.

Website by 46digital