Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax #4

Dear Government Member of Parliament,

Just before the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009 (COP15) – an event known now as Climategate rattled the IPCC world as over a thousand emails and hundreds of other computer files were released, hacked or stolen from the University of East Anglia, Climate Research Unit (CRU).

Here is one summary – but a few minutes using Google will find many more. A Superstorm for Global Warming Research

Climategate was originally ignored by our mainstream media and even today is seldom reported – but Climategate still rolls on with revelations of poor IPCC science periodically making news to this day.

Where this affects your GreenLabor Government is that Climategate has played a part in convincing many Australian voters that there is something basically wrong with IPCC science that needs addressing before we rush to implement a Carbon Tax.

Now let me show you what a Westminster Labour MP has to say – Mr Graham Stringer MP for Blackley and Broughton in Manchester.

Mr Stringer MP has written an online article:

“Climate jiggery-pokery – on the failure of scientific integrity”

THE ‘MMR’ scare is one of the most shocking scandals of recent times.

Twelve years ago the now disgraced Dr Wakefield produced a piece of fraudulent research for his own financial gain which purported to show a link between the triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella and autism.

As well as carrying out unnecessary and painful invasive procedures on 12 children, this fiddled research led to a huge drop in vaccination levels. Now there are hundreds of thousands of un-immunised children who are vulnerable to measles, which is again endemic in the UK.

Wakefield was not exposed by the academic, medical or scientific establishment but by the extraordinary and determined efforts of Brian Deer, a Sunday Times journalist. It took him twelve years.

Reading his account of how he achieved his success I was struck by enormous similarities with the investigation into the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in November 2009 – the so called Climategate scandal.

Remember how badly the emails read: ‘hide the decline’ and ‘delete any emails you may have had’ looked like a straight forward case of scientific jiggery-pokery.

Let me be clear I am not accusing Professor Phil Jones and his colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit of the UEA of Wakefield-style fraud but I am concerned that the two investigations into the leaked e-mails suffered from the same flaws as the medical and scientific investigations into Wakefield.

Brian Deer was concerned that when he approached the Royal Free Hospital and the Editor of the Lancet, that it led to an investigation “where the accused were investigating themselves.”

There was also a two year long investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) cumulating in Wakefield being found guilty of some 30 charges and together with his colleague Walker-Smith being struck off the medical register.

Deer was still not satisfied, “the regulators main focus was ethical, mine was whether it was true”.

The Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia seemed to share Deer’s desire to get at the truth when he announced an independent review which would “reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong”.

Lord Oxburgh who was appointed to chair this panel, disappointed everybody. He explained that the Vice Chancellor was new and did not understand what he had promised. He soon made it clear that he would not reassess the science but he was just going to satisfy himself as to the integrity of the scientists. After a cosy chat with the Climatic Research Unit scientists he decided that they were decent chaps.

Interestingly however following a Freedom of Information Request notes taken by one of the panellists, Professor Kelly from the University of Cambridge, indicated that while there was no “blatant malpractice” it was impossible to show that the Climatic Research Unit scientists had not cherry picked their statistics.

He thought their methodology was “turning centuries of science on its head”. Oxburgh also quietly damned the climate team by saying “it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians”

This is the equivalent of claiming medical competence whilst operating on a patient without an anaesthetist.

The other review carried out by Sir Muir Russell, a Civil Servant responsible for overseeing the huge over expenditure of the Scottish Parliament building, had even greater resonance with Deer’s concern about the accused investigating themselves. His review was charged with looking at the e-mails themselves. One of the main charges against Professor Jones was that he deleted e-mails that would show he was up to no good scientifically.

In a situation that is almost beyond parody Muir Russell stated that he didn’t ask Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails because they would have had to interview Jones under caution. What was the solution then? The Vice Chancellor asked Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails. This rather negated the purpose of having an independent Inquiry when the only person to ask the crucial question was the Vice Chancellor who saw his prime responsibility to the good name of the University. The accused investigating themselves again.

The work of the research unit is central to the manmade global warming thesis. There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the unit’s e-mails from the and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny of the science by independent panels. This did not happen.

We now know that the work done at Climatic Research Unit barely qualified as science; they kept it secret to stop other scientists checking it; thus breaching one of the foundations of the scientific method.

To stop politicians cheating, athletes taking drugs and financiers embezzling, we have increasingly strong regulators. We cannot assume scientists come from a higher moral plane.

Deer’s solution of an Inspectorate of Research Integrity has to be part of the solution to restore the reputation of science.

I assume that you know that the Professor Jones referred to by Graham Stringer MP – could be described as “the father of IPCC Global Warming”. He has been the lead author in a series of papers on global temperature trends dating from the 1980’s.

Freedom of Information failure in Australia

Mr Graham Stringer MP is scathing about secrecy in scientific research – and you should be concerned that secrecy is alive and well in taxpayer funded, pro-IPCC Australian climate science circles.

See this online article describing how an FOI request by myself in Australia has failed to discover how a seven station New Zealand temperature series has been constructed. “Australian FOI law keeps secret the construction of New Zealand seven station temperature series”

These New Zealand data came to be reviewed in 2010 by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne – hence in my opinion they are documents that come under the Australian FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982.

Just before I sign off – it is curious that in the Schedule of documents (159 docs – 1600 pages) released by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology – on 8 October 2010 there were six documents listed – a total of twenty pages prepared for a Senate Estimates briefing.

Was the Bureau of Meteorology anticipating a question from a Senator on NZ weather records ? That would be something to hear.

Yours etc

6 thoughts on “Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax #4”

  1. Hi Warwick,

    Would you like to draft a question that might be posed by a Senator on the NZ weather records? Perhaps we can find a Senator to do the asking!

  2. Warwick, Phil Jones condoned fraud if not actively involved see this THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC
    Douglas J. Keenan Energy & Environment • Vol. 18, No. 7+8, 2007
    Keenan, also presented the fraud allegation to a UK Parliamentary enquiry under oath.

    No doubt you have seen on Climate Audit the new findings of adjustments by Briffa for the medieval times. Many say that Mann’s hockey stick graph used by IPCC is a deliberate manipulation. The outcome of the defamation case by Mann against Dr Tim Ball will be interesting particularly if the lawyers can subpena Mann’s emails and various documents.

    I think there are emails about Hanson’s manipulation of of GISS temperatures. I think more will come out.

    keep strong

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *