http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...whitewash.aspx

April 15, 2010, 16:24:00 | NP Editor
CRU scientists who removed caveats from IPCC reports are praised for warning of uncertainties in
their published work
By Peter Foster

'Climategate scientists cleared of wrongdoing" read the headline in yesterday's Post. Who expected
anything else? The two self-inquiries launched by the University of East Anglia into its Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) were always destined to produce whitewashes, as did a recent UK parliamentary
inquiry, and as will an "independent" review by the UN.

The first of the UEA reports, from a committee headed by ardent warmist and anti-carbon profiteer
Lord Oxburgh, appeared this week. As Lawrence Solomon points out elsewhere on this page, the choice
of Lord Oxburgh indicated that the fix was always in for an inquiry which fails to address, let
alone probe, most of the major issues. And yet there is a mountain of
condemnation-by-faint-exoneration between the lines of the report's ridiculously slim five pages.

Its attempt to present CRU head Phil Jones, and his beleaguered band, as unworldly boffins who were
blindsided by all this attention is ridiculous. The report claims that it found a "small group of
dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers." The key question is: dedicated to what? Certainly,
they weren't expecting to be outed quite so spectacularly, but to paint them as innocents in the
big bad world of climate realpolitik is nonsense.

After reviewing a cherry-picked group of eleven CRU studies, the report gently raps the knuckles of
the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, for failing to note the reservations
that CRU researchers so assiduously attached to their peer-reviewed work. "All of the published
work was accompanied by detailed descriptions of uncertainties and accompanied by appropriate
caveats," notes the report.

Global warming alarmists relentlessly chant that there is scientific "consensus" that the "science
is settled." Yet now we are told that somehow the main body for promoting the climate change agenda
"neglected" to tell the world that the science wasn't settled. What we are not told is that the
scientists who removed the caveats in the IPCC reports were lead IPCC authors Mr. Jones and his CRU
colleague Keith Briffa!

The CRU is concerned with temperature data. Indeed it is one of the principal sources for claims
that the earth warmed alarmingly in the 20th century after 900 years of alleged climatic calm
(Medieval Warm Period? Little Ice Age? Never happened).

Data from the distant past is reconstructed from problematic "proxies" such as tree rings; but even
assembling readings for more recent periods is difficult due to the thin coverage of weather
stations and, more seriously, to the impact of the "urban heat island effect" on readings from
stations where development has encroached. There, temperature increases may be due to traffic,
tarmac and local barbecues rather than global climate.

The CRU's data has appeared in two forms: raw and cooked. Much of the raw variety, unfortunately,
has been "lost." This is treated by the review as infinitely excusable due to the pressures of the
academic life. You know, tedious admin meetings, the pressure to publish, the need to get in those
applications for multi-million dollar grants attached to proving man-made global warming. But how
can ditching the fundamental data on which your science depends be dubbed mere carelessness with
"non-essential record keeping?"

As for the cooked data, the CRU has been accused of "manipulation" not in the legitimate
statistical sense, so that different data sets may be comparable, but in support of the results
required by government-funded, highly politicized science. Without data suggesting rising
temperatures due to anthropogenic emissions, there would be no justification for massive global
programs such as cap-and-trade, redistributionist "clean development," or the hefty subsidization
of alternative energy.

The CRU is also gently fingered for its lack of statistical sophistication. As the report admits,
"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because
it is fundamentally statistical."

But hang on. Draconian global policies have been made on the basis of dodgy data handled by those
who are less than expert? This is surely a little more than "regrettable." If statistics are so
important, why didn't the IPCC make sure the CRU, and itself, had the world's greatest statistical
minds on tap? Could that be because the data and science are there to support the political
position rather than guiding it?

The report does dish out some harsh criticisms, but only to the unnamed CRU critics whose "tone" it
"deplores." They presumably refer to the likes of Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, whom
Lord Oxburgh and his team assiduously avoided. Meanwhile the emphasis on "tone" is farcical,
particularly when compared with the kind of anti-skeptic vitriol exposed in the Climategate emails.

According to the report "some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach
to information made available by CRU." So skeptics such as Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick might
have been stonewalled, insulted, undermined and threatened by the CRU cabal, but apparently it was
they who should have been more "charitable."

Lord Oxburgh suggested this week that attacks on the CRU had come from people who do not like the
"implications" of their conclusions. If by "implications" he means suicidal and pointless policies,
then that might have been the one thing he got right. Otherwise, his report is a travesty.

April 15 2010

CRU "scientists" who removed caveats from IPCC reports are praised for
warning of uncertainties in
their published work


'Climategate "scientists" cleared of wrongdoing" read the headline in
yesterday's Post. Who expected
anything else? The two self-inquiries launched by the University of East
Anglia into its Climatic
Research Unit (CRU) were always destined to produce whitewashes, as did a
recent UK parliamentary
inquiry, and as will an "independent" review by the UN.

The first of the UEA reports, from a committee headed by ardent warmist and
anti-carbon profiteer
Lord Oxburgh, appeared this week. As Lawrence Solomon points out elsewhere
on this page, the choice
of Lord Oxburgh indicated that the fix was always in for an inquiry which
fails to address, let
alone probe, most of the major issues. And yet there is a mountain of
condemnation-by-faint-exoneration between the lines of the report's
ridiculously slim five pages.

Its attempt to present CRU head Phil Jones, and his beleaguered band, as
unworldly boffins who were
blindsided by all this attention is ridiculous. The report claims that it
found a "small group of
dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers." The key question is:
dedicated to what? Certainly,
they weren't expecting to be outed quite so spectacularly, but to paint them
as innocents in the
big bad world of climate realpolitik is nonsense.

After reviewing a cherry-picked group of eleven CRU studies, the report
gently raps the knuckles of
the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, for failing to
note the reservations
that CRU researchers so assiduously attached to their peer-reviewed work.
"All of the published
work was accompanied by detailed descriptions of uncertainties and
accompanied by appropriate
caveats," notes the report.

Global warming alarmists relentlessly chant that there is scientific
"consensus" that the "science
is settled." Yet now we are told that somehow the main body for promoting
the climate change agenda
"neglected" to tell the world that the science wasn't settled. What we are
not told is that the
scientists who removed the caveats in the IPCC reports were lead IPCC
authors Mr. Jones and his CRU
colleague Keith Briffa!

The CRU is concerned with temperature data. Indeed it is one of the
principal sources for claims
that the earth warmed alarmingly in the 20th century after 900 years of
alleged climatic calm
(Medieval Warm Period? Little Ice Age? Never happened).

Data from the distant past is reconstructed from problematic "proxies" such
as tree rings; but even
assembling readings for more recent periods is difficult due to the thin
coverage of weather
stations and, more seriously, to the impact of the "urban heat island
effect" on readings from
stations where development has encroached. There, temperature increases may
be due to traffic,
tarmac and local barbecues rather than global climate.

The CRU's data has appeared in two forms: raw and cooked. Much of the raw
variety, unfortunately,
has been "lost." This is treated by the review as infinitely excusable due
to the pressures of the
academic life. You know, tedious admin meetings, the pressure to publish,
the need to get in those
applications for multi-million dollar grants attached to proving man-made
global warming. But how
can ditching the fundamental data on which your science depends be dubbed
mere carelessness with
"non-essential record keeping?"

As for the cooked data, the CRU has been accused of "manipulation" not in
the legitimate
statistical sense, so that different data sets may be comparable, but in
support of the results
required by government-funded, highly politicized science. Without data
suggesting rising
temperatures due to anthropogenic emissions, there would be no justification
for massive global
programs such as cap-and-trade, redistributionist "clean development," or
the hefty subsidization
of alternative energy.

The CRU is also gently fingered for its lack of statistical sophistication.
As the report admits,
"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved
in this work because
it is fundamentally statistical."

But hang on. Draconian global policies have been made on the basis of dodgy
data handled by those
who are less than expert? This is surely a little more than "regrettable."
If statistics are so
important, why didn't the IPCC make sure the CRU, and itself, had the
world's greatest statistical
minds on tap? Could that be because the data and science are there to
support the political
position rather than guiding it?

The report does dish out some harsh criticisms, but only to the unnamed CRU
critics whose "tone" it
"deplores." They presumably refer to the likes of Canadians Steve McIntyre
and Ross McKitrick, whom
Lord Oxburgh and his team assiduously avoided. Meanwhile the emphasis on
"tone" is farcical,
particularly when compared with the kind of anti-skeptic vitriol exposed in
the Climategate emails.

According to the report "some of these criticisms show a rather selective
and uncharitable approach
to information made available by CRU." So skeptics such as Messrs. McIntyre
and McKitrick might
have been stonewalled, insulted, undermined and threatened by the CRU cabal,
but apparently it was
they who should have been more "charitable."

Lord Oxburgh suggested this week that attacks on the CRU had come from
people who do not like the
"implications" of their conclusions. If by "implications" he means suicidal
and pointless policies,
then that might have been the one thing he got right. Otherwise, his report
is a travesty.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...whitewash.aspx