Sunday, October 03, 2010

CRU Cleared Again

...by the UK Gov, in their official Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009-10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The short version: CRU's science is solid, but there are still some issues re the prompt handling of FOIA requests. The longer version is here. My favourite bit:

13. Openness and transparency should be the presumption. That said, there are a number of good reasons why it is not always possible or appropriate to make data available immediately or even at all. In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data (although there is the question of whether they could have gone back to national meteorological societies to get permission to release data).

And another favourite bit:

The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

[...]

15. We agree with the Committee’s comments on the rights of scientists to comment informally on academic papers, noting that the scientific method relies on constructive challenge. We also note that the Muir Russell Review team investigated CRU scientists’ involvements in peer review, and concluded that none of the allegations investigated represented subversion of the peer-review process, nor an unreasonable attempt to influence the editorial policy of journals.

...which kind of segues into my next topic, because the Gaurdian's Fred Pearce thinks, wrongly, that CRU was "using underhand tactics to silence their critics". He's also calling for the head of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) chairman Rajendra Pachauri. You can read his arguments through the link above. I'm more sympathetic to the position of the Friends of the Earth:

However, [the FoE] warned that there was a real danger that if Pachauri is perceived to have been forced to stand down, then climate sceptics will call for the scalp of every subsequent chair and the position will be discredited for good.

So might journalists like Fred Pearce. In fact, since journalism feeds upon conflict (or its appearance), you can bet on it.

9 comments:

CanadianSense said...

Again?

You must have made a typo, you meant whitewashed, or do you believe the inquiries were thorough?

I still can't find the data and those pesky computer models. Can you link them for those skeptics like Tim Ball, Steve McIntrye and Henrik Svensmark’s.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/09/14/climategate-inquiries/

Paul S said...

How many times do we have to be reminded that the CRU has been cleared? Sure are a touchy lot.

Just answer the dang FOI requests as British law requires and none of this would have happened.

And not sure why you would say journalism feeds upon conflict.

Pearce's criticisms are simply good journalism, something that is horridly absent when reporters claim to report on the subject of climate science.

Correcting jaw-dropping errors in IPCC reports should be welcomed BCL, or do you think otherwise?

bigcitylib said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bigcitylib said...

How many times do we have to be reminded that the CRU has been cleared? Sure are a touchy lot.
---
They must be doing it to piss you off, Paul. And, yeah, they're jaw dropping if you think typos are jaw-dropping.

Mark Francis said...

Is Tim Ball still lying about that doctorate he doesn't have? All those years being a climatologist when he wasn't? Is Steve McIntrye still omitting publicly available data sets from his 'work', conveniently forgetting or not bothering to read papers that answer what he otherwise calls suspicious unexplainables? Is Henrik Svensmark still incorrectly babbling on about cosmic rays being behind global warming. Sunspots? Pirates?

CanadianSense said...

Mark Francis can you forward the computer models and the files requested in the F.O.I.?

This reminds me of the CBC's refusal as well?

What are they both hiding?

Almost every government in the Western world from the USA to Britain to all the other EU states to Australia and New Zealand is currently committed to a policy of “decarbonisation.” ... (But)... Winters are getting colder. Fuel bills are rising (in the name of combating climate change, natch). The wheels are starting to come off the AGW bandwagon. Ordinary people, resisting two decades of concerted brainwashing, are starting to notice.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Cooling_and_the_New_World_Order_by_James_Delingpole.htm

Lenny said...

Canadian Sense,
I have the files. But it isn't safe for me right now. I have to move every night. Even using a computer is too dangerous (this message has been posted after being passed through a number of intermediaries).
Since their agents have finished infiltrating and fixing the results of every inquiry, they have now focused their efforts on elliminating the resistance.
Rest assured we will keep fighting them, even if it costs us our lives.
And remember, no matter how thirsty you get, never drink the water. It's the flouride they put in it that allows them to brainwash us.
I hear the helicopters...must run..

Paul S said...

The Himalayan glaciers to be gone by 2035 was agitprop lifted straight from the WWF BCL. A bit more egregious than a typo.

Lenny said...

I guess someone forgot to tell them that "agitprop" isn't very effective if it's nobody hears it because it's buried in Working Group 2 and doesn't even appear in the Summary.
Gawd, you're an idiot.