Is this Climategaters Nemesis?


By Barry Napier

The problem with official investigations into alleged corruption and fraud is the time it takes to set up the investigation… giving those involved a long period in which to invent explanations and stories. Will this happen with Climategate? Prof Jones of the CRU (Climate Research Unit, East Anglia University) has already tried to milk sympathy for himself and his appalling behaviour.

The Hearing

The Hearing has begun at the UK’s House of Commons. Why does this make me uneasy? Could it be the block-buster 2009 revelations about MPs (Members of Parliament) defrauding the expenses system? Or, could it be that the British government is intent on spreading CO2 and similar deceptions and following the EU program to tax member states to ‘stop’ non-existent global warming? Or, that some of the Committee are ardent pro-warmists?

It will be interesting to see how things develop, as the UK is on the verge of a General Election.

On March 1st MPs cross-examined Prof Jones who, by now, has got his act together and will try to calmly present himself as a maligned, respected scientist. Of course, Jones claimed he has done nothing wrong… though this is not the view of thousands of scientists around the world, who fear his antics have “raised questions about the integrity of climate science”. (BBC News, 1st March).

Accusations are that Jones withheld raw data behind his research into global warming (or should we call it preconceived fraudulence in line with UN demands?). Jones admits he sent out some “pretty awful” emails, but tries to say it is normal practice to “refuse certain information to other scientists”. One of his email responses to a climate change skeptic was: “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”  (The Daily Telegraph, 2nd March).

The Childishness of Jones

This was an astonishing and childish reaction to a query! The claims made by the CRU are so huge and threatening to both personal and world economics and finances, that he MUST give out ALL data, so that the normal scientific tests can be applied!

In his evidence, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said that sound science was based on “testability, replication, and verification” and added “Of course, if you do not have the data sets or methods, then you have to trust the word of a scientist. You cannot even see if he has done those calculations directly on the basis of solid data, and this is the core of the problem – it is not about the overall science, it is about the process.” (BBC News, 1st March).

Really, it is about both. The effects of following unproven science, or ‘trusting’ scientists like Jones, who refuse to hand out their data for peer review, is that the whole world has used fraud and deception as a basis for taxing individuals to oblivion and forcing them to buy green solutions to a non-existent problem.

I predicted a few years ago that the UK government would insist householders should become ‘green’ by installing very expensive technology such as solar panels and wind turbines, that would never pay for itself in the lifetime of the house owner. Yesterday, the UK government confirmed my prediction, by offering ‘long-term loans’ to homeowners, so that they can install the technology! Most people, already heavily taxed in the most taxed country in Europe, cannot afford to buy this unnecessary equipment.

It will not be long before government begins to impose its will on the people, much as the ‘token’ system was used in Britain in the 19th century. This was where employers handed out tokens to workers, who had no option but to buy their necessary groceries and other goods from the employer-owned shop. Within a few weeks the worker started to run up debts, because of the cost of the goods and the lowness of wages. This meant the worker could never leave his employer, who literally owned him for life. This is now the UK socialist government’s strategy.

In the same BBC News report, Lord Lawson called for scientists to be more open about their work. “The Freedom of Information Act should not have been brought into this. Scientists of integrity reveal… all their data and all their methods. They don’t need the Freedom of Information Act to get this out of them.” Of course, the CRU stalled people by (not) using the Act, even though normal scientific procedure automatically allows for the exchange of information! There can be only one reason for refusing it – the science is fraudulent or deliberately poor.

Institute of Physics

The Institute of Physics (IoP), representing 36,000 UK physicists, wants an even more rigorous investigation into the work of Jones and the CRU. Very rightly, it does not trust it in the hands of MPs or government-led Committees, whose scientific allegiances are suspect because of pro-warming aims.

The Institute said that Jones had broken “honourable scientific traditions” by refusing to show data and allowing them to be checked by outsiders. (The Times, 1st March). They said that the case ‘raises issues of scientific corruption’.

One observer (Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 1st March) said the Institute of Physics doesn’t pull any punches in the submission, one of around 50 presented to the Commons Select Committee. The Institute says the enquiry should be broadened to examine possible “departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system, or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.” As only fellow scientists can properly do this, it makes sense to hold an even deeper inquiry by scientists themselves.

The issues are too far-reaching for such a call to be ignored. Unless, of course, the government’s own interests will prevent it happening… it relies on global warming and CO2 ‘pollution’ to be perceived to be true, so that it can tax citizens to the hilt, hand them over to the further taxation planned by the EU and UN, and to justify totalitarianism!

Excuses by Jones

In a statement of grandiose paternalism, Jones said he had passed on the end-result of his researches (“the finished product”) but not the raw weather station data. That is about as much use as handing out a marketing leaflet! What they want is the raw data, so they can examine the CRU’s claims, to see if they work out as the ‘finished product’ claims, or if they are fraudulent, deceptive, or just badly worked.

Jones’ excuse was that “Most scientists do not want to deal with the raw station data, they would rather deal with a derived product.” This is bunkum: only pro-warmists want the ‘derived product’ so that they can continue their charade – genuine scientists want the raw data. And, in this case, where the ‘derived product’ affects the whole world and personal incomes, the testing of raw data becomes paramount.

Vice-chancellor of the East Anglia University, Prof Edward Action, said that it was not possible to hand out all of the data because of a “commercial promise”. To whom? Backers who pay big money to suppress the truth and promote their own interests? That is what it sounds like. And critics should remember that behind the CRU are oil companies! He also said certain countries contributing to the data also wanted some of it kept secret. Why? What are they trying to hide? Only universities working on commercial products, such as drugs, want to keep things secret. Why keep information about weather secret?

For a full report of the hearing from Westminster, go to

You will note that the hearing was not in session to discover if climate change is real or not, but to see if allegations of fraud are substantiated. Therefore, there should already be moves afoot to check out the science itself, which is just as important a task as discovering fraud.

The Hearing was told by Lawson that the CRU and ‘friends’ prevented papers being published in peer-reviewed journals, because they opposed the CRU’s stance. Those who now query the CRU are being branded ‘paranoid’… a typical ploy of propaganda! Another ploy of the CRU was to say they could not handle the sheer volume of requests from skeptics. This is more bunkum. As a well-funded unit the CRU could easily have employed temporary clerks with science degrees to deal with queries.

Many reports of what is going on tend to leave out important information. For example, that the IoP said the explosive emails contained “prima facie evidence of determined and coordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.” The evidence is there – that is what fellow scientists are saying.

The IoP also commented that Jones and others colluded to stop publication of alternative views. They also deleted vital emails. Yet, the Committee did not ask Jones about them. He said it had been ‘standard practice’ to keep back some details of climate research, and he is perfectly correct… because only a few who preach climate change and CO2 pollution are allowed to publish! You can’t even get a critical letter published in The Times, who colludes with pro-warmists!

Dr Peiser told the Committee that a paper on alleged research fraud was also prevented by Jones and others from being published.

And so Day One of an investigation into Climategate has begun. Will it just huff and puff the other way, or will it huff and puff until the rotten house of the CRU falls down?