Politics / Propaganda Questions about impartiality of Climategate investigations arise
|
07 December 2009
Two universities, the United Nations, and the UK Met Office have all announced investigations of varying degrees to quickly quell the furor resulting from the release of controversial emails written by prominent climate scientists. Before the inquiries even begin, questions have surfaced about their impartiality and ability to come up with anything but a predetermined outcome supporting the scientists.
The United Nations, whose Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports form the underlying foundation for governmental action on climate change like what will be considered in Copenhagen starting today through December 18th, is launching its own investigation. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, was initially dismissive of the scandal but recently announced that the UN will be conducting an inquiry into the issues magnified in recent weeks. “We certainly are going to take a look at the whole lot of it and then are going to take a position on it,” he said. “We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will certainly look into it in detail.”
Pachauri and the United Nations (UN) have not offered any specifics into the scope of the investigation or who would be conducting it. Skeptics, as well as disinterested parties, doubt the UN’s ability to investigate itself, pointing to the corruption that went unfettered in the UN’s ‘Oil for Food’ program. At the time, the UN stymied any attempt to investigate its own program, which generated more than $10 billion in illegal revenue and lined the pockets of many UN officials.
Adding to the dubiousness that the UN investigation will be impartial are comments by Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC. In an interview with the UK’s The Times, van Ypersele complained “One effect of this is to make scientists lose lots of time checking things. We are spending a lot of useless time discussing this rather than spending time preparing information for the negotiators."
Many critics have said that it is not ‘useless time’ to ensure the very science underlying the global warming movement is accurate. A further comment from van Ypersele has many people wondering if the results from the investigation haven’t already been determined. "It doesn't change anything in the IPCC's conclusions. It's only one line of evidence out of dozens of lines of evidence,” he said.
His statements raise the prospect that much like the UN “Oil for Food” program, UN leadership will resist a thorough investigation. If a high-ranking member of the IPCC is already displaying resistance, it seems unlikely the results will be impartial.
One week ago, Penn State announced it would investigate Dr. Michael Mann, a central figure in the email scandal who wrote about ‘withholding data’ and stifling the publication of dissenting studies. Penn State’s press release praised Mann’s work ethic by stating, without the slightest glimmer of impartiality, “a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty,” followed by a recitation of his resume’s highlights.
The university, however, declined to offer specifics about who would conduct the investigation or its scope, saying only that it would follow a “well defined policy," on which it did not elaborate. An aura of suspicion was immediately created when the university stated the investigation would be conducted in private: “No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised."
The following day, the University of East Anglia, home of Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) where the emails originated, announced it would investigate the unit’s director, Phil Jones. Jones has stepped down pending the inquiry's conclusion which will be conducted by Sir Muir Russell. Russell does not have ties to East Anglia University or climate science, however, he is a member of academia and it was soon discovered that he has ties to an organization that strongly advocates the manmade climate change theory.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE), which Russell is a member of, also campaigns for stringent climate change controls. In a report on proposed carbon dioxide capping legislation, the RSE insisted on “powerful and credible strategies that stimulate change, and with the political leadership needed to persuade citizens of the need for action.” The group also recently welcomed Professor Peter Smith into its ranks. Smith is the Convening Lead Author of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.
While the universities and international institutions recognize the need to do damage control, they don’t appear committed to discovering the truth and restoring faith in their science. The investigations that have been launched thus far will do little to squelch the debate and will likely raise the prospect of one-sided and compromised results, much of which has been said about climate science itself.
Comments
Where are the democrats that care for truth?
Obama is destroying the US econmy for the contrived greater good of mankind through the UN.
RSS feed for comments to this post