You are allowed to comment on the report you are not allowed to see

From Andrew Bolt:

Here, now, is the latest example of how the Climategate conspiracy suppressed evidence that their data was flawed and faked - which in this case meant temperature rises were exaggerated by not allowing properly for the fact that concreted cities are naturally warmer. Mathametician Douglas Keenan:

Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important.

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York — where the research discussed in my paper was conducted — carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed — contrary to the university’s policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report’s release.

But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque.
The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud. The leaked files contain the defense used against my allegation, a defense obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record. It is no surprise then that the university still refuses to release the report. (More details on all of this — including source documents — are on my site.)

My paper demonstrates that by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the urbanization research. Yet Jones continued to rely on that research in his work, including in his work for the latest report of the IPCC.

If you think the IPCC processes are too strict to be corrupted by such disgraceful practices, let Madhav Khandekar show how a mere typo had the IPCC predicting a melting away of glaciers in 30 years, rather than 350:

Predictably, the IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reacted angrily [to Indian research denying warming was melting Himalayan glaciers] citing the IPCC 2007 climate change reports which asserted that the (Himalayan) glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate ( of melting) continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps even sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate. ...

First, where did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?
According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996...). estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

The scale of this scandal grows greater and more bizarre by the day.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_two_investigated_as_new_coverup_exposed/

Posted via email from Garth's posterous