As expected, following the “Climategate” revelations arising from the leaking of EUA CRU files back in November, the limited enquiry by the UK’s Commons Science and Technology Committee has ended up as a whitewash as far as the science is concerned (Note 1). The report says QUOTE: The MPs' report acknowledged that Prof Jones "must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew - or perceived - were motivated by a desire to seek to undermine his work" .. "Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the reputation of Professor Jones and the CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity UNQUOTE.
Is anyone surprised at that last sentence? That was bound to be the conclusion drawn by UK politicians since virtually all of them supported the introduction of our ludicrous 2008 Climate Change Act. (DEFRA was proud to announce QUOTE: The Climate Change Act 2008 makes the UK the first country in the world to have a legally binding long-term framework to cut carbon emissions. UNQUOTE – Note 2). I fully expect the enquiries by the CRU or the IPCC to reach similar conclusions, not because of the evidence but because of the real political agenda – but maybe I’m just a sceptic.
On 10th Feb. the CRU issued a memorandum summarising the “independent” review by Muir Russell that it had announced on 3rd Dec. The memorandum also announced that they would set up QUOTE: an additional scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself. The Royal Society has agreed to assist the University in identifying assessors with the requisite experience, standing and independence. UNQUOTE but how "independent" of political or financial influence are the members recommended by the Royal Society?
The most recent CRU bulletin announced QUOTE: ..we decided to augment the Muir Russell review with an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment. We are delighted that .. Lord Oxburgh has agreed to chair this very strong independent panel ..” UNQUOTE.
That panel may well be “independent” of the UEA CRU however is it independent of the UN’s political influence in support of the “consensus” opinion on The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis or of financial influence? Let’s take a closer look at those panel members.
CRU announced the panel as:
- Lord Oxburgh, a former chair of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, would chair but didn’t mention that Lord Oxburgh was president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association in 2009, when he said that the USA, China and India, having some of the largest coal reserves, would be using that coal and the measures used to mange the emissons must include CCS (and the West would likely have to pick up the bill).
- Huw Davies, Professor of Physics at the Institute for Atmospheric & Climate Science but overlooked that he is a member of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), and on the executive committee of the the UN’s well-funded WMO THORPEX programmes. The NERC is totally committed to The Hypothesis and fully supports the UN’s IPCC. It is worth noting that Professor Davies’ associated Professor Alan Thorpe, NERC Chief Executive, was a founding co-chair of the WMO’s THORPEX Programme and is an assessor on the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs's (Defra) Science Advisory Council.
- Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology UNQUOTE; is quoted extensively as supporting the opinion that increased warming of the oceans due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases causes increased hurricane/storm intensities and occurrences. The Tyndal Cenre for Climate Change Research report “Climate Change and Disaster Losses Workshop” May 2006 report claimed that he concluded: "My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential". In August 2005, just two weeks before Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Emanuels article in ‘Nature’ was published, pointing out, that he had discovered statistical evidence that hurricanes were indeed affected by global warming. As recently as 15th Feb Professor Emanuel posted an article in the Boston Globe which shows that he fully supports The Hypothesis.
- Lisa Graumlich, Director of the School of Natural Resources and the Environment at The University of Arizona is another of those experts in reconstructing ancient temperature changes from tree-rings. In a WILD9 plenary session on Global Connectivity A/V presentation Professor Graumlich clearly demonstrates her acceptance of The Hypothesis, the evidence offered by the IPCC and the need to mitigate against its effects. Professor Graumlich also features in those CRU “Climategate” E-mails.
- Herbert Huppert, Professor of Theoretical Geophysics at the University of Cambridge but didn’t mention that he is involved in research into various aspects of fluid mechanics and has interests in research into carbon capture. Comments that he made during an interview in Aug. 2008 indicate that he accepts The Hypothesis.
- Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge but chose not to mention that he is also Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government, since July 2006. It is significant that Cambridge University is very closely involved with the production of the UN’s IPCC Assessment Report AR4.
David Hand, Professor of Statistics in the Department of Mathematics at Imperial College UNQUOTE about whom I can find nothing to suggest that he is other than independent of the UN’s political influence regarding climate change.
On the basis of the above only Professor Hand may be “Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others”. The remainder could well be exposed to such influence.
The Muir Russell review, which was also proclaimed by the CRU on 3rd December to be “independent” is scheduled to be completed “in the Spring” but I have not found any recent report on its status. Do any of you have an update on this?
In my previous comment on this subject I promised to look at what’s behind the InterAcademy Council (IAC) to see if it can be any more independent than the CRU enquiries.
The UN, panicking over the damage done by all of those IPCC-gates, is proposing to have an “independent” enquiry by a panel of members chosen by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) but how independent is the IAC? It would be nice to hope that enquiries into all of those damning IPCC-gates would be independent, open and honest, but do any of us really expect that from any enquiry set up for politicians (and financiers) by politicians (and financiers) or by those dominated by political (or financial) influence? Let’s take a look at what’s behind the IAC organisation to see if it is any more independent than the University of East Anglia CRU’s current “independent” enquiries.
The IAC was founded by The InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP – Note 3) which QUOTE:..is a global network consisting of over 100 national science academies. .. Founded in 1993, its stated goal is to help member academies advise the public on the scientific aspects of critical global issues UNQUOTE. To understand the motivations of the IAC we have to understand first those of the IAP. The motives relating to the activities of the UN’s IPCC are found in its various statements (Note 4)
For example, buried in the IAP 1994 report (Note 5) “Population – joint statement signed by fifty-eight of the World’s Scientific Academies (1994)” QUOTE: The Problem .. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions .. indicate how the natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits. UNQUOTE. Then again, in its 1996 report “THE CHALLENGES OF AN URBAN WORLD” it says QUOTE: .. The rapid expansion of computational power over the past two decades has permitted the construction of intricately detailed models of the behavior of the Earth's atmosphere on both global and regional scales. These models have improved steadily in recent decades and are now in worldwide use, proving better and more sophisticated understanding of the world's climate system. … parks may serve as lungs to process vehicle emissions .. UNQUOTE.
In its May 2000 report “transition to sustainability in the 21st century: the contribution of science and technology” is said QUOTE: Global trends in climate change .. are growing concerns .. Humanity now can change the environment on a global scale, as it has with the composition of Earth's atmosphere and may be doing with its climate .. UNQUOTE
Also in these statements are indications of the motivations of the IAP with regard to UN agenda in aid of which The Hypothesis propaganda originated, i.e:- redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
- establishment of a framework for global government.
but these are not relevant to this thread.
1) see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8595483.stm and http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2010/03/video-phil-jones-at-the-uk-parliamentary-select-committee/
2) see http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/legislation/
3) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterAcademy_Panel_on_International_Issues
4) see http://www.interacademies.net/CMS/About/3143.aspx
5) see http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547