Global Climate Change: September 25, 2010
 
Damning New Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries
   

Source: Global Warming Policy Foundation

The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations.

The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

In particular, the report finds that:

  • none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
  • insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
  • none managed to be objective and comprehensive
  • none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
  • terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
  • none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.

Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said:

"The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims."

"All in all, the evidence of the failings of the three UK inquiries is overwhelming. Public confidence in the reliability of climate science will not be restored until a thorough, independent and impartial investigation takes place," Andrew Montford warned.

Lord Turnbull, who wrote the foreword to the GWPF report, said:

"The report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates that all three inquiries have serious flaws. The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, i.e. early and conclusive closure and restoration of confidence."

"The new House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has rightly reopened the issue, would do well to study Andrew Montford's report and take evidence from him. It needs to satisfy itself as to whether the criticisms made are valid and whether the exoneration claimed is justified."

"Only if the integrity of the science is re-established and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public which policymakers need," Lord Turnbull said.

Lord Turnbull also called on the Government to look at the serious criticisms of the IPCC made in the recent InterAcademy Council Report. He said: "The Government should demand that the fundamental reforms recommended by the IAC in the practice, governance and leadership of the IPCC are implemented immediately for its Fifth Assessment."

The full report can be downloaded here

Hard copies can be ordered for £10.00 from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB, UK

*******************

A second paper on the inquries can be found here:

Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
Written by Ross McKitrick, Ph.D

 
   

Ask the Conservationist
Conservation and the Military – Unlikely Friends?

It is increasingly clear that innovative and effective partnerships are key to the long-term success of conservation.

So when a Facebook friend from Texas asked about The Nature Conservancy's involvement on military bases, it seemed like a perfect topic to address in our Ask the Conservationist column.

We invite you to read on and when you're done, send us your questions on any conservation subject for one of the Conservancy's hundreds of staff scientists. (Note: We regret that we can only answer one or two questions each month and that we cannot answer the others offline.)

Rudy G. Castro from McKinney, TX writes:

Are you involved with U.S. military bases to promote, guide or teach the base managers about their impact on their local environment?

Debbie Keller, the Conservancy's liaison to the Department of Defense responds:

We may seem like unlikely partners, but yes, The Nature Conservancy is actively working with the Department of Defense (DoD) to manage habitats in and around military bases for biodiversity and ecosystem health.

Defense testing and military training require isolated areas, which are often wilderness areas void of humans but filled with a large number of natural species. Urban and suburban encroachment has become increasingly problematic for both military installations and ecosystems nationwide.

The Conservancy assists the DoD with management plans for threatened and endangered species, habitat management with prescribed fire and invasive species removal. At times we provide the research and best management practices, as well as assist staff at military bases across the country.

The Conservancy also works to buffer the installations with conservation lands. Working with the DoD program known as Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative, the Conservancy helps achieve permanent land protection surrounding bases in order to provide conservation habitat and wildlife corridors.

In Florida, for instance, the Conservancy completed an analysis of natural areas surrounding 10 of Florida's defense installations. The study sought land protection opportunities in a 10-mile zone around each base that could benefit both nature and the military.

These partnerships are the result of collaboration and relationships that will continue to protect the biodiversity both on and off the bases. Working side-by-side, Conservancy staff and defense staff train each other - and local communities - to minimize habitat and species impacts both on and off the bases.

http://support.nature.org/site/PageServer?pagename=asktheconservationist_201008