Climategate whitewash: Third time's no charm
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, July 12, 2010
The University of East Anglia got what it paid for -- a fig leaf intended to hide the truth about climate alarmism.
A new report upholds climate alarmists' preordained blame-mankind conclusions and "exonerates" the university's Climatic Research Unit by whitewashing its scientific misconduct documented in the Climategate e-mails. It's a clumsy whitewashing, too -- one whose conclusions were just as preordained.
This report is touted as "independent" but was commissioned by the university . It was headed by one Muir Russell, described in media accounts as a former civil servant -- which doesn't exactly connote scientific or statistical expertise.
It's the third such whitewashing -- after one by the British Parliament and another funded by the university. And with this "exoneration" in hand, the university, which fired Phil Jones from his post as the unit's head after his infamous "trick" Climategate e-mail was exposed, is rehiring him as its director of research. How convenient!
What this report really confirms is that climate alarmists and their enablers pervert genuine science and whitewash evidence of their misconduct. Hopefully, those gullible enough to buy what these charlatans sell will get what they have coming, too.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.