Rod McLaughlinThe Climategate whitewash
Yet another whitewash - the Muir Russell enquiry. There was the parliament enquiry, the UEA's enquiry, and Penn State's. That's four. All have found no charge to answer. The Guardian is holding a debate about climate change: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/guardian-debate-climate-science-emails It happens to be on Bastille Day. Let's see if the mob of enlightenment can storm the prison of reason... UPDATE - 17jul10 - the Bastille of AGW alarmism DID fall - climateaudit.org/2010/07/14/report-from-the-climategate-guardian-debate/ wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/video-guardian-climategate-debate/ UK green activist journal 'New Scientist' quotes the parliamentary inquiry absolving poor Prof. Jones of the Climatic Research Unit because they felt sorry for him: www.newscientist.com/article/dn18715-climategate-inquiry-points-finger-at-university.html "We can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew – or perceived – were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work." Politicians don't understand that inviting people to undermine your work is the essence of how science - real science - works. Here's a gem from climate "scientists"' attempts to defend themselves at the Royal Society, 29 May 2010: "However he denied accusations that the national academy of sciences has ever stifled debate or that the case for man made global warming is in doubt" Does denying something is in doubt not constitute stifling debate? I mean, if you say something is not in doubt, aren't you saying that there is no point in debating it? And doesn't that tend to stifle debate? Back
|
