The leaked emails showed how these scientists had been discussing with each other how to conceal the date on which they had based their conclusions; how they were trying to manipulate the data to give the impression of increased warming and to conceal the inconvenient truth that warming was not in fact happening; and how they tried further to conceal all this by attempting to get their critics barred from scientific journals. This rank betrayal of science, truth and open academic debate was available for all to see from the emails that were leaked. And yet the inquiry gave these scientists an almost totally clean bill of health. Moreover Michael Mann, one of the most important of those involved in the scandal -- and whose ‘Hockey Stick’ graph had been the crucial ‘evidence’ for the assertion that we are living through an unprecedented warming of the planet but which was totally debunked to world-wide uproar -- has also been totally exonerated by his university, Penn State, of any stain on his scholarship or integrity. And as this account explains, the way in which this was done was simply astounding: Hopes for a bona fide investigation were dashed when the preliminary results were released in February. To the joy of climate alarmists, Penn State announced via press release that Mann was cleared of three of the four allegations against him (regarding falsification/suppression of data, deletion of e-mails/data and misuse of confidential information). But if one looks past the release and reads the committee’s report, it becomes obvious the fix was in. ... The committee went to great lengths to defuse the money line from the Climategate e-mails – i.e., “Mike’s Nature trick… to hide the decline.” While explaining how “trick” could merely refer to a “clever device,” the committee failed to even mention “hide the decline,” a phrase referring to Mann’s still-unexplained deletion of temperature data contradicting the climate alarmism hypothesis. Based on Mann’s denial, the preliminary report concluded that there was no evidence to indicate that Mann intended to delete e-mails – even though that conclusion is contradicted by the plain language and circumstances of the relevant e-mail exchange. No inquiry beyond Mann’s denial was made. Finally, the preliminary report dismissed the accusation that Mann conspired to silence skeptics by stating, “one finds enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the e-mails and their content” – but shouldn’t the committee have attempted to eliminate that confusion? This account suggests why it was hardly surprising that Penn State University gave Mann a clean bill of health: Over the years, Mann has brought in millions of dollars for the university through his research. For the university to come to any other conclusion than that he acted appropriately would be an admission that the university has been fleecing those who gave the money. How would such an admission affect not only future funding but also repaying funds already received? Thus, it is quite apparent what a predicament the university was in and why the university could not investigate Mann — as it was really investigating itself. This whole travesty is so extreme that it has appalled even supporters of AGW theory. Clive Crook, who buys the idea that the atmosphere is warming up dangerously and supports a carbon tax, writes nevertheless (via Andrew Bolt): I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption... I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause. The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false. ... In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble. Further "vindication" of the Climategate emailers was to follow, of course, in Muir Russell's equally probing investigation. To be fair, Russell manages to issue a criticism or two. He says the scientists were sometimes "misleading" -- but without meaning to be (a plea which, in the case of the "trick to hide the decline", is an insult to one's intelligence). On the apparent conspiracy to subvert peer review, it found that the "allegations cannot be upheld" -- but, as the impressively even-handed Fred Pearce of the Guardian notes, this was partly on the grounds that "the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was 'team responsibility'." Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the university which houses CRU, calls this "exoneration". As Andrew Bolt also reports, a new book by science journalist Mark Lawson of the Australian Financial Review, ‘A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy’ says, according to the blurb: Activists and even some scientists will tell you that the science behind the expected major warming of the globe is rock solid. In fact, the projections of temperature increases in coming decades are based on entirely unproven forecasting systems which depend on guesses about crucial aspects of the atmosphere behaviour and the all-important oceans. In addition, these forecasts use carbon dioxide emission scenarios that have been generated by economic calculations rather than from science, and parts of which are already hopelessly wrong less than a decade after they were made. …this lunacy has been compounded by further forecasts based on these already deeply flawed projections and combined with active imaginations, to produce wild statements about what will happen to plant, animal, bird and marine life, as well as coral reefs, hurricanes, sea levels, agriculture and polar ice caps. The books shows that these projections are little more than fantasy. On top of all this lunacy activists, aided and abetted by some scientists, have proposed a range of solutions to the supposed problem that are either never going to work, such as an international agreement to cut emissions, or are overly complicated and expensive for no proven return, such as carbon trading systems and wind energy. None of these proposals have been shown to be of any use in reducing carbon emissions, outside of theoretical studies. Where wind energy has been used in substantial amounts overseas the sole, known result has been very expensive electricity for no observed saving in emissions. Oh -- and if anyone is still muttering about 'melting ice-caps' or 'hottest year since records began', read this. Like the Watergate affair, the real scandal is not just the actual events under investigation but the subsequent cover-up. The ‘Climategate’ emails lifted the curtain on the deeply questionable and anti-scientific methods being employed to keep AGW theory going in the face of contrary evidence. But the investigation that followed has turned into a scandal of its own. It exposes how AGW theory is so deeply embedded into a scientific establishment which has far, far too much face to lose if it were to start telling the truth about this bogus ‘science’ – and thus it helps explain how a scam of the magnitude of AGW theory has been successfully perpetrated upon the world for so long. The 'Climategate' travesty
Even in these intellectually debauched times, is hard to credit the cynical and brazenly corrupt farce of the ‘investigations’ into the ‘Climategate’ email scandal centred around East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The UK inquiry, led by former British civil servant Muir Russell, astonishingly cleared this group of scientists who have played such a key role in promoting anthropogenic global warming theory of virtually all accusations of wrongdoing.
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Melanie Phillips
Posts
