Wednesday, March 31, 2010

- Bishop Hill blog - Stephen who?
Has anybody noticed how little attention the committee gave to Steve McIntyre's evidence? I said at the time that their failure to invite him to give evidence smacked of not wanting to know the truth. In particular, SM's evidence put the Nature trick in clear perspective, but despite that the committee concluded there was no case to answer.
Climate Research News » MPs ‘Climategate’ Report Published: Whitewash With Dissent
There is some dissent from within the committee from MP Graham Stringer who is unhappy that neither of the independent reviews had a climate sceptic member.

“There should be a reputable scientist on the panel [who is] sceptical about man-made global warming,” he said.

“If we are trying to establish credibility this would be preferable.”
- Bishop Hill blog - The Parliamentary Report
...I'm struggling to say something polite about this. By way of an illustration, can you imagine the reaction if a scientist reported in the safety literature that there was a critical flaw in the design of a nuclear power station, but told policymakers that everything was fine? Do the committee really think it's fine to hide important information from policymakers so long as you report it in the literature? Astonishing.
[NY Times writes about oil; barely mentions the global warming hoax]: Oil Prices Find Sweet Spot for World Economy - NYTimes.com

No comments: