http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...ot-guilty.aspx

April 15, 2010, 16:19:00 | NP Editor
Climate-change partisans find mere sins of omission
By Lawrence Solomon

To allay public concern over Climategate - the unauthorized release of some 3000 documents from the
computers of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University - the university established two
independent inquiries to attend to the widespread view that science had been corrupted through the
distortion and destruction of data, through cover-ups, and through the perversion of the peer
review process.

The first of these inquiries has neatly dismissed all concerns of impropriety through the oversight
of its chair, Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool, a man of impeccable credentials in the climate change
field. Lord Oxburgh is chair of the multinational Falck Renewables, a European leader with major
windfarms in the U.K., France, Spain and Italy, and he's chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage
Association, a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $-trillion industry by
2050.

Lord Oxburgh's judicial temperament also served him well in his role as chair of the university
inquiry. "We are sleepwalking" into a global warming threat so dire, Lord Oxburgh explained in
2007, that the world may need to do more to discourage carbon dioxide emitters than to simply put a
price on carbon. "It may be that we shall need, in parallel with that, regulations which impose
very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere," he explained.

To determine what happened at East Anglia University, Lord Oxburgh assembled an eminent panel of
six others with equally impressive climate change qualifications. This panel then read a
representative sample of peer-reviewed papers on a variety of subjects that members of the
Climatic Research Unit had produced over the last 20 years or so. The papers were selected by the
UK's Royal Society, another impressive organization which has worked intimately with the Climatic
Research Unit and which states that "It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the
burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate."

The publications occupied a good proportion of the panelist's time and were invaluable in the
panel's work, the panel explained: "The publications provided a platform from which to gain a
deeper understanding of the Unit's research and enabled the Panel to probe particular questions in
more detail."

Not content to end their inquiry with this reading, some of the panellists visited the university -
two of them twice - for further readings and for discussions with the scientists at the Unit. The
discussions assured the panel members who visited the university that the scientists were
honourable men, albeit poor record keepers, and that nothing was amiss.

As for discussions with scientists who charged the Climatic Research Unit with numerous instances
of malfeasance for manipulating and destroying raw temperature data, the panellists felt that was
uncalled for. Neither did the panellists deem it necessary to investigate the many emails that gave
rise to the Climategate scandal.

As the panellists explained, they "have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism" because
"it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to
information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and
dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research
is sometimes conducted. Funding and labour pressures and the need to publish have meant that
pressing ahead with new work has been at the expense of what was regarded as non-essential record
keeping.

"From our perspective it seems that the CRU sins were of omission rather than commission," the
panelists concluded, adding that "we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been
directed at CRU."

In the end, the panellists published hardly anything at all - a mere five pages of observations
that explore not a single charge made by CRU's accusers, and thus, in truth, do nothing to absolve
CRU or to allay public concerns.

Financial Post

April 15, 2010
Climate-change partisans find mere sins of omission


To allay public concern over Climategate - the unauthorized release of some
3000 documents from the
computers of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University - the
university established two
independent inquiries to attend to the widespread view that science had been
corrupted through the
distortion and destruction of data, through cover-ups, and through the
perversion of the peer
review process.

The first of these inquiries has neatly dismissed all concerns of
impropriety through the oversight
of its chair, Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool, a man of impeccable credentials in
the climate change
field. Lord Oxburgh is chair of the multinational Falck Renewables, a
European leader with major
windfarms in the U.K., France, Spain and Italy, and he's chair of the Carbon
Capture and Storage
Association, a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a
$-trillion industry by
2050.

Lord Oxburgh's judicial temperament also served him well in his role as
chair of the university
inquiry. "We are sleepwalking" into a global warming threat so dire, Lord
Oxburgh explained in
2007, that the world may need to do more to discourage carbon dioxide
emitters than to simply put a
price on carbon. "It may be that we shall need, in parallel with that,
regulations which impose
very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of
greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere," he explained.

To determine what happened at East Anglia University, Lord Oxburgh assembled
an eminent panel of
six others with equally impressive climate change qualifications. This panel
then read a
representative sample of peer-reviewed papers on a variety of subjects that
members of the
Climatic Research Unit had produced over the last 20 years or so. The
papers were selected by the
UK's Royal Society, another impressive organization which has worked
intimately with the Climatic
Research Unit and which states that "It is certain that increased greenhouse
gas emissions from the
burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of
climate."

The publications occupied a good proportion of the panelist's time and were
invaluable in the
panel's work, the panel explained: "The publications provided a platform
from which to gain a
deeper understanding of the Unit's research and enabled the Panel to probe
particular questions in
more detail."

Not content to end their inquiry with this reading, some of the panellists
visited the university -
two of them twice - for further readings and for discussions with the
scientists at the Unit. The
discussions assured the panel members who visited the university that the
scientists were
honourable men, albeit poor record keepers, and that nothing was amiss.

As for discussions with scientists who charged the Climatic Research Unit
with numerous instances
of malfeasance for manipulating and destroying raw temperature data, the
panellists felt that was
uncalled for. Neither did the panellists deem it necessary to investigate
the many emails that gave
rise to the Climategate scandal.

As the panellists explained, they "have not exhaustively reviewed the
external criticism" because
"it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and
uncharitable approach to
information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of
awareness of the ongoing and
dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under
which university research
is sometimes conducted. Funding and labour pressures and the need to publish
have meant that
pressing ahead with new work has been at the expense of what was regarded as
non-essential record
keeping.

"From our perspective it seems that the CRU sins were of omission rather
than commission," the
panelists concluded, adding that "we deplore the tone of much of the
criticism that has been
directed at CRU."

In the end, the panellists published hardly anything at all - a mere five
pages of observations
that explore not a single charge made by CRU's accusers, and thus, in truth,
do nothing to absolve
CRU or to allay public concerns.


http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/b...ot-guilty.aspx