An independent inquiry? - by Richard... Thursday, February 11, 2010

An independent inquiry? - by Richard... Thursday, February 11, 2010

Why has this review been announced? Well, the website says: "The University of East Anglia announced the independent Review on 11 February to investigate key allegations arising from the series of hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in December 2009."

"The incident," it continues, "saw an anonymous hacker steal 160MB of data from the UEA server (including more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents) and leak it online." 

So, even while a police inquiry continues, with every possibility that this was an inside job, we have a supposedly independent inquiry which makes assumptions which prejudice the outcome of another inquiry – and shows its own bias into the bargain.

And we are supposed to believe this is going to come up with anything useful? It is tainted before it has even started.

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD

Print ready

Downstream comment - by Richard...

"The global-warming thrill ride looks to be coming to an end, undone by the same politically motivated serial exaggeration and moral preening that discredited previous apocalypses. 

On the heels of the East Anglia University "Climategate" scandal have come a series of embarrassing retractions from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding some of the most loudly trumpeted signs and wonders of global warming, such as the ludicrous claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear within 30 years, that nearly half of the Amazon jungle was at imminent risk of destruction from a warming planet, and that there was a clear linkage between climate change and weather-related economic losses. 

The sources for these claims turned out to be environmental advocacy groups — not rigorous, peer-reviewed science.

To be sure, these revelations do not in and of themselves mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is false. But this is probably the beginning of a wholesale revision of the conventional wisdom on climate change."

From NRO. Would I be wrong in thinking that it would help if as much energy went into researching the faults in the IPCC AR4 as went into commenting about the material that has already been produced? 

CLIMATE CHANGE – FINAL PHASE THREAD