http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
        see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================


Monday 14 June 2010 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/feeds


      Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical
      commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture
      and society in general.

  Third Climategate report 'imminent' – expect a shortage of whitewash
  in stores this weekend

By Gerald Warner

June 11th, 2010

If you were planning to do a spot of DIY over the weekend you may
encounter a problem – an acute shortage of whitewash in your local
store, as it may have been appropriated for more urgent purposes. The
estimable Bishop Hill is reporting he has heard on the grapevine that
the publication of the review into the Climategate emails conducted by
Sir Muir Russell is “imminent”. The prospect seems to have provoked an
acute absence of hysterical excitement.

This is the third investigation into Climategate and the universal
expectation is that it will be as much a snow job as the previous two,
though those precedents will be hard to beat: not since Tom Sawyer
manipulated his friends into whitewashing his aunt’s fence has a team
worked harder than the successive establishment figures who have
exonerated the Decline Hiders from any culpability.

The Russell review got off to a bad start. Within hours of its launch
last February, Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature (the magazine
referred to in “Mike’s Nature trick” which also published the Hockey
Stick graph), had to resign from the inquiry because of remarks he had
made in an interview on Chinese State Radio, in which he said: “The
scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is
one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals
that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact the only
problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability
to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”

Some people took the narrow-minded view that this suggested Campbell had
prejudged the issue, so he had to go. Why did Sir Muir Russell think
that Campbell was a suitable person to have on the inquiry panel in the
first place? A press release claimed of the panel members: “They were
selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate
change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the
issues of the review.”

Is there anybody from the establishment who can be relied upon to
approach this issue with an open mind? Some of the observations
emanating from the climate change industry suggest it has already
anticipated the verdict of the inquiry. For example, Bob Ward, policy
and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on
Climate Change and the Environment, complained: “Some commentators have
already taken on the role of judge and jury (like Philip Campbell, does
he mean?), pronouncing on the guilt of those involved and calling for
their resignations. The Review team need to be fair to all concerned,
but they may ultimately have difficulty persuading people to accept a
verdict that does not match the conclusions that they have already
reached themselves.”

That sweetly reasonable call for open-mindedness appears to have a sting
in the tail, when it anticipates the likelihood of a verdict “they may
ultimately have difficulty persuading people to accept”. That suggests
the inquiry is expected by the climate change establishment to reach a
conclusion that will invite widespread scepticism – like Lord Oxburgh’s
verdict, for example. How imminent the Russell verdict may be remains to
be seen; but, just in case, forget about attempting any whitewashing
activities in the near future – better stick to ordering a few cans of
creosote instead.

(end)