“An exposé of planetary scale.”
~JAMES E. HANSEN  
 
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.


 



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.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

FOLLOW US!
 
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-NEWSLETTER
Get our Top 5 stories in your inbox weekly.
DESMOG TIP JAR
Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science.

About the climate cover-up

About the climate cover-up

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

www.know-the-number.com

Our Climate is Changing!
Please download Flash Player.