Second expert panel shows "ClimateGate" was a ClimateSham

Thu, 2010-04-15 10:48Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Second expert panel shows "ClimateGate" was a ClimateSham

An independent panel of experts in the United Kingdom has released a report  finding there to be, “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.”

The inquiry was headed by former Chair of the House of Lords science and technology select committee, Lord Oxburgh.

As reported in the Economist today, “The scientists in ‘climategate’ did not fudge the data.”

The Wall Street Journal writes on the matter that:

“An independent academic panel said Wednesday that the U.K. climate researchers at the center of a scandal over hacked emails didn’t commit any deliberate scientific malpractice.”

This is the second inquiry out of the UK in the last month finding no wrongdoing around the so-called “climategate” incident involving the theft of private emails from top climate researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

An inquiry last month led by a bi-partisan UK government committee found the claims made around the stolen emails to be without merit.

The bi-partisan committee found that “the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced,” and that Dr. Jones’s actions were “in line with common practice in the climate science community,” and the CRU’s “analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.”

You can download that report here: “The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”

Kevin Grandia is Operations Manager for DeSmogBlog and works for the Vancouver Public Relations company, Hoggan & Associates.

Previous Comments

I understand Lord Oxburgh, chair of the Climategate inquiry, is also chair of a major European wind-farm company and chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. So, he’s hardly independent and appears to have a serious conflict of interest as chair of the inquiry. Didn’t anyone figure this out beforehand or was the outcome guaranteed by Oxburgh’s appointment?

I understand that Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the CRU investigative committee, is associated with a European wind-power company and also a carbon sequestration group. These associations demonstrate a serious conflict of interest. How could Oxburgh have been appointed to this panel position under such circumstances? Whitewash, it would appear.

[x]

This November marks the fifth anniversary of Climategate  when millions of emails were illegally hacked and spun as evidence that the world's leading global warming researchers were engaged in a dark conspiracy. Six inquiries exonerated the scientists. Over the coming weeks, DeSmog UK will be running a series of articles revisiting the faux scandal to explore the tragic and the farcical. 

... read more