'Climategate' enquiry clears CRU scientists

By J.Roff On March 31, 2010 · 1 Comment

The results are out, and the recent British Parliamentary enquiry into the CRU email leak found no evidence

The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate change sceptics.

But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data.

It said his reputation, and that of his climate research unit, remained intact.

Further:

The committee said much of the data that critics claimed Prof Jones had hidden, was in fact already publicly available.

But they said Prof Jones had aroused understandable suspicion by blocking requests for data.

The MPs’ report acknowledged that Prof Jones “must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew – or perceived – were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work”. (More from BBC News)

Good news. But… what’s the bet we haven’t heard the last of this one?

To quote a commentor from Reddit:

“How could an official inquiry – which is essentially no more than a group of educated people carefully analysing the facts of the case – trump an angry mob whose knowledge of the issue comes from newspaper headlines?”

One Response to 'Climategate' enquiry clears CRU scientists

Phil M says:

April 2, 2010 at 1:36 am

The denier blogs & big hitters are strangely quite & reluctant to talk after Phil Jones vindication.

I attempted to write on Andrew Bolts blog on the subject:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mps_insist_climategate_just_hot_air/#commentsmore

This is what i wrote:

“A remarkably generous finding.” Strange you should say that Andrew. After all, you yourself have been involved in a defamation case in 2002 in which you claimed victory over. Yet the courts thought otherwise. Phil Jones is owed an apology & the honourable thing for you to do would be to say you accept the ruling & that you were wrong.

The comment was never published.

I moved over to Anthony Watts blog, but found equal frustration on his CRU verdict blog:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/results-of-the-climategate-paliamentary-inquiry-in-the-uk/

The following comment:

“Anthony Watts, no doubt you will accept the findings of this case & cease your smear campaign against Phil Jones & the CRU?”

The comment was never published.

I tried again later & wrote this:

“Quite funny the denialist dogma really. Like creationists…jesus is coming..the rapture is soon. The CRU enquiry was the last bastion of hope for the denialists. They thought it was all over & every climate science institution in the world would be shut down. Climate science could be then told by the good guys, the right wing bloggers, journalists, weathermen & lobbyists. Then Phil Jones was exonerated…epic fail guys”

Ok, it was a bit of pot stirring, but hey, if anyone should be able to roll with the punches its these guys….apparently not…my post was met with this:

Phil M (15:38:19) :

[snip]

Calling other posters/readers denialists is unacceptable.]

I wrote back with :

“I didnt call anyone in particular a denialist, it was a generalisation. Seems if you are a “climate change skeptic” in this blog, you are free to use the term “denier” as Sly did above:

“Seems that there were 3 warmists and 1 denier.”

It is also ok it seems to use the derogatory “warmists” or “catastrophists” tag freely . What contradictions & what censorship.

The comment was never published & all subsequent comments, no matter how pleasant, were never accepted on that blog.

The next few blogs I was prevented from posting also until finaly I was allowed on denialist up & comer Willis Eschenbach’s post.

Like Christopher Monckton, Willis Eschenbach is fast making a name around denialist blogs & right wing media & is often called a scientist or climate change expert like Monckton. Willis Eschenbach is a construction engineer & like Monckton an “amateur scientist”.

To jog peoples memories here is a few looks at Willis:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

http://climatewtf.blogspot.com/2010/02/willis-eschenbach-deconstructed.html

Fossil fuel lobbyists are using his Energy & Developments paper:

http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Public/Svalbard.pdf

They are refering Eschenbach’s paper, Watts blog & even our own Andy Bolt in their “evidence” against the EPA’s Clean Air Act:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

Here is an objection to the EPA’s legislation filed by Republicans, Fossil fuel industries, logging industries & Motoring industries in which Eschenbach, Bolt & Watts are referenced.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Third_Amendment_to_Petition_for_Reconsideration_SE_Legal_Foundation.pdf

Anyway, enough amusement, back to Willis & Watts blog & my comments to him:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/18010/

I modified my earlier post on the CRU blog & was met with the same thing:

Phil M (15:35:30) :

[snip]

Calling other posters/readers ‘denialists’ is not acceptable.]

It was blocked, but fortunately it was up long enough for Willis to see & bite.

Willis Eschenbach (16:04:51) :

Phil M (15:35:30)

Aahah, Times up boys , the tide is turning. Quite funny the [snip] dogma really. Like creationists…jesus is coming..the rapture is soon. The CRU enquiry was the last bastion of hope for the [snip]. They thought it was all over & every climate science institution in the world would be shut down. Climate science could be then told by the good guys, the right wing bloggers, journalists, weathermen & lobbyists. Then Phil Jones was exonerated…epic fail guys.

Phil, not one person I know “thought it was all over and every climate science institution in the world would be shut down”, that’s just your bizarre fantasy. We all know that your side fights dirty, that was made obvious in the CRU emails, and so we are well aware that we in for the long slog.

And as the first person to file an FOIA request with the CRU, I fully expected that the inquiry would be a whitewash … so I was neither surprised nor disappointed that it was. I am a realist, I knew they would close ranks to protect the guilty, as did anyone following the story … except perhaps you, I guess.

Phil Jones asked people to destroy evidence requested in a FOIA action. The UK police said the only reason he was not charged was that the statute of limitations had run out. And you say he was “exonerated”? Riiiight … “avoided prosecution” does not equal “exonerated”.

His pals deliberated for one whole day, didn’t take testimony from anyone involved, and declared him pure as the driven snow … yeah, you guys have the high moral ground all right.

Now, if you have anything scientific and substantial to say about the subject of this thread, you are welcome to say it. If you are just here to insult people and to try to resurrect Phil Jones’ reputation, not so much … this is a scientific blog, and your scientific opinions and claims are welcome. If there is something in my post that you think is untrue, please point it out. That’s how science works, I make claims and substantiate them, you try to falsify them.

If not, you won’t get much traction here, so you might think of posting your hate mail on some site where people will cheer and tell you how right you are, because here, we do science and not strange fantasies.

In the meantime, you might see here, here, and here for some of the many problems with the inquiry

I wrote back immediately with this which was not published:

“Calling other posters/readers ‘denialists’ is not acceptable”.

I didnt actually call anyone that, it was a generalization. Strange you dont see the irony, when you permit derogatory comments such as “warmists”. No wonder you lack credibility. You rage against the perceived censorship of the CRU , but practice it yourself. Validating its use.

“Phil, not one person I know “thought it was all over and every climate science institution in the world would be shut down”, that’s just your bizarre fantasy.”

Willis, come off it, dont act coy. Climate change skeptic blogs & right wing blogs are full of people stating its all over & are actively engaged in trying to bring down or discredit institutions that have served us well for decades, in some cases centuries, until it becomes a political hot potato & conservatives around the world have been given the metaphorical call to arms.

“We all know that your side fights dirty”

Oh yeah, by practicising science & witing a few disparaging emails, whoopee. Hardly worth shutting down the CRU, NASA & the IPCC because of it, considering you had no science to back your claims, just smear. In contrast to your side that has used an armada of right wing bloggers, right wing media, lobbyists, pr firms, failed attempts at discrediting institutions like what Anthony Watts did with the surface stations, which was resoundingly debunked, hacked emails which led to no prosecution, attempts on the IPCC, attempts on NASA. On top of this you have used FOI spam , which you admit to. Are you a scientist? Do you live in the UK? What did you hope to achieve from submitting FOI to the CRU besides holding up science? Unless you are a climate scientists, you wouldnt have known what to do with the data you requested. FOI is just the new kid on the block that the tobacco industry used to hold up science & legislation, except back then, they called it subpoena’s. Your right wing bloggers encourage their legions to spam hatemail to whoever they name as the new target, often attacking the wrong person in their fervor. Can you point me to this kind of behaviour from my side?

“this is a scientific blog, and your scientific opinions and claims are welcome”

This is not a scientific blog, its a gossip & commentary blog. Its not run by scientists & is widely considered the antithesis of a science blog. The AMU which Anthony Watts is part of disagrees with his views. Maybe he should start there. Same with every major scientific institution on the planet….none agree with you or watts.. & you dont consider that odd? Mainly right wing blogs & conspiracy blogs agree with your point of view, but not one major climate institution?

If you want to talk science, what are you doing on a commentary blog? Why not approach NAS, NASA, AMU, CRU, MET, NOAA, CSIRO, BOM, Royal Society & other major instituions with your findings? Heck, why not submit a paper? Instead of shaking your fist at it all with your mates here at the giant conspiracy & sniping at the sidelines with FOI’s?

So I complained with this post which was accepted & the mods replied:

Phil M (19:18:13) :

Censorship here at WUWT? Who would have thought.

Reply: Comments that are nothing but venom are discouraged and often trashed. ~ ctm

Willis wrote back when he saw the accusations of censorship with this:

Willis Eschenbach (23:08:42) :

Phil M (19:18:13) : edit

Censorship here at WUWT? Who would have thought.

Reply: Comments that are nothing but venom are discouraged and often trashed. ~ ctm

Phil, I think that censoring a scientific question is high treason. If it happened here, I wouldn’t post here. They do that all the time at RealClimate, and it is an abomination. Here’s my peer reviewed article on the subject.

People who come in spoiling for a fight and trying to provoke one by insulting everyone in sight, on the other hand, are the reason that nightclubs have bouncers … the moderators do an excellent job and moderate with a light hand. I commend them for doing a time-consuming and thankless job

Amazingly, they allowed me to reply this time & didnt edit anything:

Phil M (00:00:10) :

Willis, you published in Energy & Developments. A low tier journal & hardly considered anything serious in the climate science world.

You say ” “this is a scientific blog, and your scientific opinions and claims are welcome”. I disagree, it is a commentary blog.

If you want to talk science, what are you doing on a commentary blog? Why not approach NAS, NASA, AMU, CRU, MET, NOAA, CSIRO, BOM, Royal Society & other major instituions with your findings? Heck, why not submit a paper to one of the top journals & see how you go? Or go an take up your theories on the many blogs that oppose your views & see how you go.

Are you a scientist? Do you live in the UK? What did you hope to achieve from submitting FOI to the CRU besides holding up science? Unless you are a climate scientists, you wouldnt have known what to do with the data you requested. All you are doing with your FOI attempts is spamming.

You guys complain of being censored when you ask the hard questions of climate scientists & then call it venomous when some one asks you the hard questions? That is simply moderators setting the agenda.

Im still waiting on Willis’s reply, hopefully he mans up, but really, my accusation of creating a post that was venomous is a bit rich, considering these guys are actively day in day out creating gossip & propaganda & actively taking part in trying to ruin scientists careers & bring down institutions instead of presenting any scientific papers to debunk the current AGW position.

Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach & Andrew Bolt, roll with the punches guys.

Reply