Results of the Climategate Paliamentary Inquiry in the UK

Results of the Climategate Paliamentary Inquiry in the UK“. (Yes, Anthony Watts can’t spell “Parliamentary”) Looks like Climategate isn’t the “final nail in the coffin of Global Warming” after all. Sorry Anthony, you’re going to have to keep bellowing. But perhaps the next few days are good ones for keeping a low profile.

The House of Commons press release is here. Click here to read the full report, The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. [Update: Volume II, the oral and written evidence is also available. There is some entertaining denialist posturing contained within!]

About “sharing data.” (all italics mine)

On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

About the “trick”:

On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails-”trick” and “hiding the decline”-the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.

About accusations of “dishonesty” against Dr. Phil Jones (this was particularly nasty and unfounded):

Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.

About the  FOI requests:

On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU.

No doubt Anthony or Steve McIntyre will find something to get outraged about, but this looks like a clean sweep for Dr. Phil Jones and the Climate Research Unit. This is a good day for science.

12 thoughts on “Results of the Climategate Paliamentary Inquiry in the UK

  1. It is interesting to note that McIntyre shot himself in the foot by organising a flood of FOI requests concerning the restrictions applying to each Nat Met office’s data.
    If he had just left the few FOIs for data and not added the orchestrated attack perhaps the report would have been even less favourable to the CRUs refusal to action the FOIs.

    Surely it is now time for Jones and Co to start issuing the defamation writs?
    If they do not defend their reputations the skeptics will keep up the attacks, in my view.

  2. Testing. The limit on comments here seems to be 2. Just wanted to see if this would go through moderation.

    Just a suggestion. Did you know that you can post your comments on WUWT, you might find a bigger audience?

    [No limit on “comments”, but I think the WordPress default for links is two per comment… Nothing notable in my spam list.

    I’m not particularly interested in the sea of stupidity that is the comments at WUWT. The rational gets lost in the noise there, and the few comments I did make there were often maliciously edited. Which is why I began this effort (spread the word!). My blog stats tell me that people are searching for certain denialist phrases and coming here. All I want is for them to get some context before heading over to WUWT. – Ben]

  3. [No limit on “comments”, but I think the WordPress default for links is two per comment… Nothing notable in my spam list.

    Thanks for your reply. Actually, my inquiry was not properly worded. I meant to say ‘The limit on comments here seems to be two per post’. I see now that there has been sufficient interest in your endeavor to generate a couple of more comments. Keep up the good work.

  4. thefordprefect: the “flood of FOI requests” was a “clever trick” without which it seems likely the climategate leaks never would have happened. Jones had a story as to why the data couldn’t be shared, the story was clearly bogus, and FOI requests were just about the only tool available to confirm or disconfirm his false claim that the reason raw data couldn’t be shared was due to a bunch of secret “agreements” preventing data-sharing.

    What assumptions lead you think there would have been *any hearings at all* had McIntyre been less aggressive and more polite about trying to get data from CRU?

    [I think you’ve managed to explain it precisely backwards. – Ben]

  5. You got it wrong Glen. If that troublesome bully McIntyre had given up after his initial requests for information were stonewalled, Jones would have had a change-of-heart, and he would have spontaneously complied.

    Now McIntyre is in big defamation trouble. Jones and Co are going to take him and his mob to the cleaners. I assume they have ‘discovery” in the UK legal system. That should be interesting. I am sure the judges will be just as objective, as were the politicians in that little inquiry just concluded. I hope we don’t get the same judge that shafted Al Gore on that movie thing.

    Ben, what I like about this blog is that the rationality is not going to get lost in a sea of comments. Thank you for your effort.

    [Thanks back! I’m glad to see people are finding this useful. I think my manual comment approval policy reminds people that wild statements here are a waste of time. – Ben ]

  6. Pingback: Singer on Climategate Parliamentary Inquiry « Wott's Up With That?

  7. [Thanks back! I’m glad to see people are finding this useful. I think my manual comment approval policy reminds people that wild statements here are a waste of time. – Ben ]

    You are welcome Ben.

    It’s good that you are only getting one or two comments per day, or that manual comment approval policy could get to be a burden.

    I will keep looking in. I am curious to see how long it will take, before it dawns on you that nobody cares.

    [Ah, this is funny. My first “concern troll”! I thought that your odd phrases were just an english-as-a-second-language thing. I think I’ll put you in a little glass jar on my windowsill. – Ben]

  8. It took you quite a while, Ben. Remember me fondly. I will probably be the last “concern troll” [sic] that you see around here, Ben. Nobody really cares.

    [And yet here you still are, preening for attention. Back in your bell jar, little one. – Ben]

  9. DLM , I think you had him, just goes to show that Ben has no common sense, good job that he’s in the right trade then as Climate Science doesn’t make any sense, especially after all the homogenising.
    Fantasy stuff really, have you got another jar for me Benny, I’d love to have pride of place on your desk

    [Sorry “Ben”, you’ve been squished. But I do enjoy the cranks returning to tell me that no-one cares, especially not them. – Ben]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s