Damning New Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Link in title) has issued their assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others:

The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

In particular, the report finds that:

  • none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
  • insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
  • none managed to be objective and comprehensive
  • none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
  • terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
  • none of them perfo
  • rmed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
The full report (pdf) can be downloaded here.

James Delingpole of the (UK) Telegraph says:

Climategate whitewashers squirm like maggots on Bishop Hill's pin

Just back from the House of Lords for the launch ofthe GWPF's report on the failings of the three Climategate inquiries.

The official inquiries, as we know, found nothing untoward in any of the Climategate emails – nor in the behaviour of the scientists responsible for them. But the GWPF’s report, by Andrew “Bishop Hill” Montford, begs to differ. At the conference, one journalist asked Montford to try to summarise the juiciest of his allegations. Montford found this difficult: so many and varied are the failings of the three whitewash inquiries, he simply couldn’t decide which ones to choose.





Comments