Unhypnotized
Truth feeder
Climate Realists
Sept 14, 2010*
The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations.
The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.
In particular, the report finds that:
#none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
#insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
#none managed to be objective and comprehensive
#none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
#terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
#none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
Full article here
Source...
Sept 14, 2010*
The Global Warming Policy Foundation today publishes a detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations.
The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.
In particular, the report finds that:
#none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
#insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
#none managed to be objective and comprehensive
#none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
#terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
#none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
Full article here
Source...