Just thought I'd put out there some more examples of why sceptics argue that the establishment is firmly set against them (not that the UK Prime Minister calling them flat earthers
wasn't a clue).
First we have the fact that despite being found to have clearly breached FoI laws, none of those involved will be prosecuted.
The key statement is this one:
But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago
Now, what's controversial about that?
Simply put because I urge everyone to read the act in question
and find any mention of a time limit with regard to prosecution for breaching it. What you may find if you look into Magistrates Act are provisions that that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities' attention – not
after it was committed. Yet it seems the Information Commission doesn't understand the laws that brought it into existence... and I should also point out that there has been no mention of a prosecution under the 1977 Criminal Law Act( for a conspiracy to defy the law) where there is no time limit anyway.
Can I also just add in that the Information Commission's reading of the law is patently ridiculous. 6 months from the time of the offence? By the very nature of Freedom of Information offences they'll nearly always take an age and a half to discover. If it hadn't been for the leaked emails in this case the offence would never have been discovered. If the Act was really meant to be read as having a 6 month time limit from the offence
then it becomes virtually toothless... and thus worthless.
Then, we have the official independent enquiry into Climategate over here in the UK, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. From its official site
Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.
Which sounds great right?
Until you realise it's simply not true.
First, there's the fact Dr Philip Campbell
was originally on the panel. The guys an editor of Nature magazine which has long been one of the leading voices on the man-made climate change front and quite damningly posted this
editorial immediately in the wake of the scandal becoming public:
The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ’smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.
This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.
(Of course it's worth pointing out that pretty much all the evidence suggests it was a leak as opposed to a theft...)
The final straw was when he spoke to Chinese media and stated that those implicated "behaved as researchers should" and eventually (after a large fuss was kicked up) [noembed]resigned
So it's fine now then? Sure even inviting Dr Campbell into the inquiry was an act of either incredible ignorance and poor judgement or a deliberate attempt to prejudice the results, but it's over now... he's gone.
But then we still have this character, Professor Geoffrey Boulton.
This man made his academic name at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (the one being investigated) and spent 18 years working there.
Works a door down from one of the team who produced the discredited Hockey Stick graphs
Now, that's not exactly a smoking gun. Sure, it looks bad but we all know people who work an office down from people we disagree with and people who wouldn't go out their way to protect people they used to work with. But there's more.
He believes the debate over climate change is over
, has lectured
on the dangers of climate change and how we should deal with it, believes theHimilayian glaciers will be gone by 2050
, was one of those who signed up to the Met Office statement
in the wake of Climategate that stated that scientists "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity" and has
spoken about doomsday visions
of the effects of climate change (some by 2013).
Now, the enquiry makes very clear it's not there to debate the science... and fair enough. But how can you say people like Professor Boulton, who have staked their name and reputation on climate change being both destructive and man-made, have no conflicts of interest here when they're investigating the very body who's evidence forms the centre of that position. It seems to me to be the equivalent of having a seriously pro-war hawk like Dennis Miller be put as part of an enquiry into whether the Iraq war was legal. Ok, that's perhaps not fair... Miller is no expert on any area of international relations or law... how about someone like Douglas J. Feith
Regardless of your stance on the science, can we all at least see that some of the politics behind this is really starting to stink? And that even if there is nothing to hide here some of the pro man-made climate change are seeming to act like there is...