A conspiracy on which side?
Much of the solid research used by the IPCC was done by the three
or four researchers of the Climatic Research Unit of the University
of East Anglia, at Norwich, directed from 1998 by Professor Phil
The CRU became bombarded
with questions from the public. I didn't know this when I sent a
question, to which I got a courteous reply. Many of the questions
were hostile and makework designed to waste the
scientists' time and provoked some natural impatience, which
the scientists expressed in emails to each other. Hackers broke
into the CRU's computers, stole thousands of private emails dating
over a span of 15 years, and very selectively leaked them to the
internet but waited to do this till just days before the December
2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, with obvious intent to cripple
The stolen and misrepresented
emails were trumpeted as Climategate, the uncovering
of an international conspiracy among climate scientists to withhold
evidence against their conclusions. It did play a large part in
the failure of Copenhagen. Phil Jones admitted that he contemplated
Then in November
2011 the hackers did it again: released another batch of the stolen
emails onto the internet, a week before the next climate conference,
Who were the real
conspirators? They remain unlike the scientists they boobytrapped
in hiding. There was suggestion in 2009 that they worked,
like many other hackers, from Russia. This was corroborated in 2011:
the emails were released onto Russian servers.
An inquiry by the
cross-party Science and Technology Select Committee of the House
of Commons reported in March 2010 that there was no case against
Jones for him to answer, and that he should return to the post from
which he had stepped down. In April another investigation, by an
independent panel of leading professors from the US, Britain, and
Switzerland, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, rector of the Imperial College
London, utterly exonerated the scientists. ...absolutely no
evidence of any impropriety anywhere . . .
all of the conclusions were honest and sensibly arrived at . . .
the work has been carried out with integrity, and allegations of
deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are
not valid . . . no hint of tailoring results
to a particular agenda . . . We saw no hint
of deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU . . .
One of the investigators, Prof. David Hand, commented:There
is no evidence at all of anything underhand, the opposite if anything,
in that they have brought out in the open the uncertainties associated
with what they are doing. The CRU scored, as it were, 98 out
of 100; the slight criticisms by these investigators were that the
CRU could have used some more recent statistical methods, and that
climate scientists in general should be a bit more willing to release
masses of their primary data, even to those obviously demanding
it in hope of undermining their work.
as it should be called, uncovered the sneakery to which anti-scientists
will stoop. It did nothing to discredit the huge body of evidence
that global heating is real and is human-caused.