Jump to content

UK Parliament to investigate Climategate and CRU data issues


Recommended Posts



From the Science and Technology committee of the UK Parliament press release here.




The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia




Terms of Reference


The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:


—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?


—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?


—How independent are the other two international data sets?


The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.




On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.


The Independent Review will:


1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.


2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.


3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.


4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.






Rather than tag this onto the end of an 8 page long post that got rather sidelined (apologies as I was to blame in the main for it going off track) I do think that this investigation could be a good thing.


We sceptics have been unhappy for some time at what we see as manipulation and obstructive actions by those who are "believers or Alarmists".


Hopefully if this is an honest and open investigation we can see exactly what has gone before and take it from there.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

donna miller - 2010-01-23 2:33 PM


No doubt there will be the usual whitewash, after all, the gravy train is a money spinner, and the government won't let facts interfere with their 'climate change' taxation scam.




Why can't you just accept that global warming / climate change ( and probably lots of other nasty things) are caused almost entirely by British motorists, and just pay up.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from yesterdays Telegraph


“…a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.


What has now come to light, however, is that the scientist from whom this claim originated, Dr Syed Hasnain, has for the past two years been working as a senior employee of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general. Furthermore, the claim – now disowned by Dr Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC – has helped TERI to win a substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.


At the same time, Dr Pachauri has personally been drawn into a major row with the Indian government, previously among his leading supporters, after he described as "voodoo science" an official report by the country's leading glaciologist, Dr Vijay Raina, which dismissed Dr Hasnain's claims as baseless.


Now that the IPCC has disowned the prediction made by his employee, Dr Pachauri has been castigated by India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, and called on by Dr Raina to apologise for his "voodoo science" charge. At a stormy Delhi press conference on Thursday, Dr Pachauri was asked whether he intended to resign as chairman of the IPCC – on whose behalf he collected a Nobel Peace Prize two years ago, alongside Al Gore – but he refused to answer questions on this fast-escalating row”


More at:-






So – as I see it – Gore and Pachauri got the Nobel Prize and Gore and Pachuri both have business interests intrinsicaly linked to the worlds governments accepting that Global Warming is a huge problem.


Pachauri as head of the IPCC takes as “Gospel truth” a piece of non scientific claptrap from one of his employees in a company (TERI) Pachauri owns and includes this lie in an IPCC report. This report is then used to secure a :-


“substantial share of a $500,000 grant from one of America's leading charities, along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.”


Conflict of interest????


Gravy Train????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooops! – the IPCC drops another one.


At the recent Copenhagen Climate Change summit (you know!! – the one where all the senior Alarmists flew in from all over the world to tell us all that the rest of us must not fly anymore, or drive our cars or take holidays etc.) - amongst all of the spin was the poorer nations demanding $billions from the developed world because they were suffering as a direct result of us in the developed world causing climate change.


Well The Sunday Times has done a bit of research on the back of the revelation of the abuse of the scientific process that allowed the IPCC to wrongly state that the glaciers in the Himalayas would be all gone by 2035 and they found that the science behind the IPCC claim in its 2007 report that the world had:-


“suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.


The problem is that the IPCC cited a study on severe weather event frequency that wasn’t complete yet. When it was complete in 2008, it came to an entirely different conclusion about linkage to global warming:


The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.


When the scientific paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said:


“We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”


Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month.


It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.






The guys that leaked those CRU emails and files have, at long last, managed to get those that write the news to stop just accepting what the Alarmists say as the truth and are now actually looking and questioning what is said.


One has actually suggested that the only truth about Climate Change is that those in charge changed the data. I would add "How times change" as well. 8-) :-S :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tracker

In spite of all the arguments surely nobody will suggest that we carry on over exploiting finite reserves in the way that we have been?


Even if climate change aka global warming aka second ice age (not so long ago you may recall) does turn out to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated by mankind on mankind some good will have come if we start to consume less and pollute less?


The planet's climate has been changing for millions of years and will continue to do so at it's own rate and we simply have to learn how to live with and adapt to it - much as mankind has been doing since first walking on dry land?


Oh yes, sorry, it's the second greatest hoax in all time - guess what the first was - here's a clue - it started about 2010 years ago!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree totally with the idea that we hav to conserve what we have and use sensibly. The old Ant and Grasshoper parable is so true in this respect.


What I object to is the politicisation of the science. The science I did is long ago but I was taught to be sceptical and to question the validity of everything until the truth is all that is left.


One article i was reading over the weekend is interesting in that it is now showing how many organisations are distancing themselves from the IPCC and other info sources that constitute "dodgy dossiers". Tony Blair set up the Stern Review - as a definative economic review of Global warming - its results were "Alarmist" to say the least.


Now this chap is looking at the reports that the IPCC used non scientific non peer reviewed reports in its assessments and that their conclusion that AGW caused extreme climate events was false. The original authors even said as much. So he thinks – “Didn’t The Stern Report quote this false data as well?”


So he went to the UK Government website – retrieved the data and thought “That is strange – that is not what I remember it saying”.


So he goes back through his old files and retrieves a PDF document he saved some years ago of The Stern Report.


And he finds a very strange thing. In the original document the IPCC data stating a factor of 1.3% of costs of extreme weather events attributable to GW has now been altered to 0.13% with -


“no note, no acknowledgment, nothing indicating that the estimated damage for hurricanes was modified after publication by an order of magnitude. The report was quietly changed to make the error go away. Of course, even with the Table corrected, now the Stern Review math does not add up, as the total GDP impact from USA, UK and Europe does not come anywhere close to the 1% global total for developed country impacts (based on Muir-Wood), much less the higher values suggested as possible in the report’s text.”


So now the conclusions of the Stern Report are clearly compromised as the original conclusion included the factor of 1.3% cost. This drove out the alarming conclusions.


More on this with copies of the relevent pages of the documents at




Seems like every day brings more and more


Link to comment
Share on other sites

My word!


That bastion of Climate Change alarmism "The Guardian”, the home of George Monbiot - he who stated that Global Warming Deniers were akin to holocaust deniers and should be put on trial for the crimes they WILL commit by denying the "truth" of Global Warming - has run the following article.




A snippet:-




"A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced."



Fair play to The Guardian for running the story. This is bound to upset some of its AGW alarmist/believer readers.

(^) :->

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...