Climategate: The Official Cover-Up Continues

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by James Delingpole: The
Greatest Threat of the 21stCentury: NotAGW but Eco-Fascism

 

 
 

If there’s
one thing that stinks even more than Climategate, it’s the
attempts we’re seeing everywhere from the IPCC and Penn State
University to the BBC to pretend that nothing seriously bad has
happened, that “the science” is still “settled”,
and that it’s perfectly OK for the authorities go on throwing
loads more of our money at a problem that doesn’t exist.

The latest
example of this noisome phenomenon is Sir Muir Russell’s official
whitewash – sorry “independent inquiry” into the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) scandal.

The inquiry
has not even begun and already it has told its first blatant lie
– seen here on its official website.

Do any
of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate
change and climate science?

No. Members
of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds.
They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest
in climate change and climate science and for the contribution
they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

By what bizarre
logic, then, did Sir Muir think it a good idea to appoint to his
panel the editor of Nature, Dr Philip Campbell? Dr Campbell
is hardly neutral: his magazine has for years been arguing aggressively
in favour of the AGW, and which published this editorial in the
wake of Climategate:

The e-mail
archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at
the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by
the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see
page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing
remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions
qualify as the proverbial ’smoking gun’: proof that
mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to
suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are
warming the globe.

This paranoid
interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that
obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use
it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s
much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the
scientific case that global warming is real – or that human
activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported
by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that
are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated
in the e-mails.

Dr Campbell
has since resigned his post – and rightly so, as the Global
Warming Policy Foundation makes clear
. But are we to feel any
more confident about the alleged neutrality of another of Sir Muir’s
appointments, Professor Geoffrey Boulton?

Read
the rest of the article

February
19, 2010

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare