More ‘ignore it and hope the complaints go away’

The FOIA type information that got out of the CRU by hook or crook (depending upon your POV) still resonates. There have been panels to look at things and it was noted that these panels’ reports seemed to be a whitewash. Many questions were ignored. The panel composition was blatantly biased. Like Dr. Blake (down a couple of entries), there are some folks who just won’t sit down and let the dishonesty go uncontested.

Watts describes it as Heated Climate Change Politics in the UK. There are some quotes and links to follow to find out more.

The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. … “There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened.

Note the cite to the use of the polar bear floating down the Thames (with pic) as well. It seems that the polar bear has become a symbol for climate alarmism. It is a dishonest symbol and one that distracts but it is a cute and cuddly symbol that seems to resonate for those who do not care to inspect their thoughts.

Steve McIntyre gets into a bit more analysis of the effort in Sci Tech Committee Again.

My take is that the Committee was annoyed with the University of East Anglia, being quite critical of the inquiries in the running text, but have decided that there are other more pressing priorities and that it’s time to “move on”. In some cases, they seem to have gritted their teeth and accepted untrue statements at face value. Graham Stringer, by far the most knowledgeable member of the Committee on matters UEA, moved a critical amendment to the conclusions that is an honest appraisal of the situation.

Read his post to see why he comes to this conclusion.

The issues raised do not seem to be going away as they have in the past. Going through the motions but avoiding the tough questions is not burying those questions anymore. Instead, it only seems to raise more questions and those questions are getting closer to home as well. A “stiff upper lip” will only take things so far, it seems.

Comments are closed.