http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...mate-game.aspx

Lawrence Solomon: The new climate game
Those determined to prove the existence of man-made climate change may soon taste their own
medicine

By Lawrence Solomon
Climate scientists play a good game of whack-a-mole.

Right from the early days of the global warming controversy, they whacked any scientist who
dissented from the view that CO2 was warming the planet in a dangerous way. Up popped other
skeptical scientists, and WHACK!! Down they went.

Up popped skeptical journalists and WHACK! Down they went, too. Then more whacks for new scientists
who surfaced, or pesky scientists who resurfaced.

Today, decades later, the climate science establishment is still whacking away, faster and more
frenetically than ever, as more and more skeptical scientists, journalists and politicians surface.
And now there's a new species of skeptic in need of whacking down *- the many inquiries that have
sprung up in the wake of Climategate, the unauthorized release of some 3,000 documents from the
computers of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University showing that data had been
manipulated and destroyed.

East Anglia University was the first to establish an inquiry into its conduct. Then it started a
second inquiry to complement the first. The Met Office, the UK government's meteorological
department, announced its inquiry to redo the data that CRU had destroyed, a process that would
take it three years. The UK's Information Commissioner's Office began an inquiry, to ascertain
whether the country's Freedom of Information Law had been broken. The local police force, working
with Scotland Yard, also began an inquiry.

All these would and will need to be whacked, and more would, too. The IPCC itself announced an
inquiry. Across the Atlantic, Penn State University, home to Michael Mann, one of America's most
important doomsayers, launched an investigation.

The UK government also decided it needed an inquiry, and fast, to address Climategate before it
could call national elections, which were imminent. Its House of Commons' Science and Technology
Committee expedited matters by holding a one-day hearing into Climategate during which it took no
direct testimony from skeptical scientists. With nothing much discovered the members of the
parliamentary committee declared its job done.

"Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," explained the committee's chair, Phil
Willis, en route to the hustings, but "We had to get something out before we were sent packing."

But many expect the House of Commons committee to pop up again after the elections, particularly
since the committee asked whether "publicly funded research groups [were] being as open as they can
be, and ought to be, with the details of their methodologies."

The UK Met Office hasn't completed its investigation but it has nevertheless been whacked, for
announcing its inquiry early on, in December, embarrassing the government before the Copenhagen
climate change meetings. The Met Office then assured everyone that it didn't expect to find
anything amiss after its investigation.

In some cases, whacking was not required - at least not by the climate change establishment. The
inquiries set up by East Anglia University have as their members people of satisfactory
credentials. Consider Lord Oxburgh, who chairs one of the two inquiries. He is also the head of
Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, a lobby group for global warming
legislation, and an advisor to Climate Change Capital, which aims to cash in on the $45-trillion
market in the coming low-carbon economy. Others on the inquiries have strikingly similar
credentials, so much so that the London Telegraph reported that "almost all their members were
committed, even fanatical advocates of global warming."

Whacking was also not required for the Penn State inquiry, which interviewed no skeptical witnesses
and has already exonerated Mann on three of four charges.

But a Penn State whacking may nevertheless be required after the Inspector General at the U.S.
National Science Foundation, a major funder of Penn State's global warming research, unexpectedly
popped up. The Office of Inspector General states that "in accordance with our research misconduct
regulation, (45 C.F.R. part 689), when the OIG is provided with an institution's investigation
report, we review it for fairness, accuracy and completeness."
When it does, it will represent the first time that an independent investigative government
organization will have scrutinized alleged climate change wrongdoing, but it may not be the last,
or the most searching.

As made clear in an 84-page Minority Staff report produced in February by the United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, criminal charges will be aggressively pursued if the
chief force behind the report, Senator James Inhofe, finds himself once again a Senator in the
majority after the November elections in the U.S.

Entitled "Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy," the report asserts that "The scientists
involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded
research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws... An independent inquiry conducted by
the UK's Information Commissioner has already concluded that the scientists employed by the
University of East Anglia, and who were at the centre of the controversy, violated the UK's Freedom
of Information Act. . In our view, the CRU documents and emails reveal, among other things,
unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some of the world's preeminent climate scientists."

And then the whacking might really start, with the climate scientists at the business end of the
mallet.

Financial Post

Those determined to prove the existence of man-made climate change may soon
taste their own
medicine

Climate "scientists" play a good game of whack-a-mole.

Right from the early days of the global warming controversy, they whacked
any scientist who
dissented from the view that CO2 was warming the planet in a dangerous way.
Up popped other
skeptical scientists, and WHACK!! Down they went.

Up popped skeptical journalists and WHACK! Down they went, too. Then more
whacks for new scientists
who surfaced, or pesky scientists who resurfaced.

Today, decades later, the climate science establishment is still whacking
away, faster and more
frenetically than ever, as more and more skeptical scientists, journalists
and politicians surface.
And now there's a new species of skeptic in need of whacking down *- the
many inquiries that have
sprung up in the wake of Climategate, the unauthorized release of some 3,000
documents from the
computers of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University
showing that data had been
manipulated and destroyed.

East Anglia University was the first to establish an inquiry into its
conduct. Then it started a
second inquiry to complement the first. The Met Office, the UK government's
meteorological
department, announced its inquiry to redo the data that CRU had destroyed, a
process that would
take it three years. The UK's Information Commissioner's Office began an
inquiry, to ascertain
whether the country's Freedom of Information Law had been broken. The local
police force, working
with Scotland Yard, also began an inquiry.

All these would and will need to be whacked, and more would, too. The IPCC
itself announced an
inquiry. Across the Atlantic, Penn State University, home to Michael Mann,
one of America's most
important doomsayers, launched an investigation.

The UK government also decided it needed an inquiry, and fast, to address
Climategate before it
could call national elections, which were imminent. Its House of Commons'
Science and Technology
Committee expedited matters by holding a one-day hearing into Climategate
during which it took no
direct testimony from skeptical scientists. With nothing much discovered the
members of the
parliamentary committee declared its job done.

"Clearly we would have liked to spend more time of this," explained the
committee's chair, Phil
Willis, en route to the hustings, but "We had to get something out before we
were sent packing."

But many expect the House of Commons committee to pop up again after the
elections, particularly
since the committee asked whether "publicly funded research groups [were]
being as open as they can
be, and ought to be, with the details of their methodologies."

The UK Met Office hasn't completed its investigation but it has nevertheless
been whacked, for
announcing its inquiry early on, in December, embarrassing the government
before the Copenhagen
climate change meetings. The Met Office then assured everyone that it didn't
expect to find
anything amiss after its investigation.

In some cases, whacking was not required - at least not by the climate
change establishment. The
inquiries set up by East Anglia University have as their members people of
satisfactory
credentials. Consider Lord Oxburgh, who chairs one of the two inquiries. He
is also the head of
Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, a lobby group
for global warming
legislation, and an advisor to Climate Change Capital, which aims to cash in
on the $45-trillion
market in the coming low-carbon economy. Others on the inquiries have
strikingly similar
credentials, so much so that the London Telegraph reported that "almost all
their members were
committed, even fanatical advocates of global warming."

Whacking was also not required for the Penn State inquiry, which interviewed
no skeptical witnesses
and has already exonerated Mann on three of four charges.

But a Penn State whacking may nevertheless be required after the Inspector
General at the U.S.
National Science Foundation, a major funder of Penn State's global warming
research, unexpectedly
popped up. The Office of Inspector General states that "in accordance with
our research misconduct
regulation, (45 C.F.R. part 689), when the OIG is provided with an
institution's investigation
report, we review it for fairness, accuracy and completeness."
When it does, it will represent the first time that an independent
investigative government
organization will have scrutinized alleged climate change wrongdoing, but it
may not be the last,
or the most searching.

As made clear in an 84-page Minority Staff report produced in February by
the United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, criminal charges will be
aggressively pursued if the
chief force behind the report, Senator James Inhofe, finds himself once
again a Senator in the
majority after the November elections in the U.S.

Entitled "Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy," the report asserts that
"The "scientists"
involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles
governing taxpayer-funded
research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws... An
independent inquiry conducted by
the UK's Information Commissioner has already concluded that the scientists
employed by the
University of East Anglia, and who were at the centre of the controversy,
violated the UK's Freedom
of Information Act. . In our view, the CRU documents and emails reveal,
among other things,
unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some of the world's preeminent
climate "scientists"."

And then the whacking might really start, with the climate scientists at the
business end of the
mallet.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...mate-game.aspx

On 13 Apr, 02:03, "ZBN@,0O" wrote:
Those determined to prove the existence of man-made climate change may soon
taste their own
medicine

Climate "scientists" play a good game of whack-a-mole.

'Consider Lord Oxburgh, who chairs one of the two inquiries. He is
also the head of Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced
Environment, a lobby group for global warming legislation, and an
advisor to Climate Change Capital, which aims to cash in on the $45-
trillion market in the coming low-carbon economy.'

Do I get this right? This guy is the *head* of an environmental lobby
group? And stands to make a lot of money from carbon trading if it can
be forced through? And he is chairing an enquiry into CRU? Please
someone tell me this is not true