I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the paper that once employed Greg Felton* has in it’s employ another writer of AAA journalistic standards, but in the July 14th edition, Mark Hasiuk pens an editorial breathtaking in it’s dishonesty. Oh it’s about the dangers of the local Council’s green leanings colouring the interpretation of certain events…blah blah blah…but in doing so he first references the “Climategate” scandal – where someone hacked into the network of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and downloaded volumes of emails that, they say, demonstrate that climate change is a huge fraud perpetrated by climate scientists. Hasiuk is blunt:
They cooked the books. Bludgeoned dissent. Targeted skeptics and destroyed data…Last Wednesday, in a final attempt at damage control, an inquiry (formed and funded by the university) released its Climategate findings despite three previous independent reviews. According to the inquiry, CRU manufactured “misleading” information and exhibited “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.”
Except of course, that’s not what it found. He doesn’t mention which inquiry this was (which, you know, should set off alarm bells), but I’m assuming he means this one – The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review. Unlike Hasiuk, I will quote the actual findings:
On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. … we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. … But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness
On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. … On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. … We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading. … On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this … On the allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU scientists of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, we find that the allegations cannot be upheld
Other things not mentioned by the Courier scribe – There have been 4 other independent inquiries: the NRC panel, the independent Penn State Committee, the U.K. House of Commons report, the International Panel, and the Penn state Investigatory Committee. Each of which vindicates the CRU scientists.
His characterization is not simply misleading. It’s out and out false.
Love the imagery on Mark Hasiuk’s twitter page. I do believe that’s called a “tell”.
*Felton scans Google for mentions of his name. Undoubtedly he or his sock puppet will appear in comments.