Who is Gloria Zane, we would all like to know. She posts here sometimes, then disappears for a while. Several local blogger and commenter on this blog have offered to meet with Gloria for coffee and some conversation, but so far she has not accepted any invitations. Why.
It was this comment here that prompted me to set the record straight.
Gloria Zane
Did any of these deniers — McClintock, Steele, Rebane et. al. — see that “Climategate” (bwa-hahaaaa … still not over Nixon), their last, great hope to knock down credible global warming science, was just soundly rejected (again)? This just in, and it’s all over the Interweb. Enjoy, fellas (though I suppose it’s time for you to start spinning things in a massive panic — Iceland volcano! Wacky sunspots! Gore’s massage therapist!).“The review was the fifth to come to essentially the same conclusion about the e-mail messages sent by Dr. Jones and other scientists, though it was the most comprehensive and eagerly awaited of the investigations.”
Link here.
Yes, this was the fifth attempt to whitewash climate scientist fraudulent behavior. This was the fifth attempt of the bureaucrats to vindicate there fellow bureaucrats. Here is some of the responses by independent observers, including David Holland who hand submitted Freedom of Information Requests that were discussed on the Climategate E-mails.
University of East Anglia the Information Commissioner has issued his Decision Notice, FER0238017, on David Holand's complaint that UEA did not deal with his 2008 requests for information in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs).Paragraphs 34 onwards of the Notice make clear beyond argument that information on climate change and its assessment by the IPCC is subject to the EIRs, and that UEA broke them. Paragraph 36 states:
“The Commissioner’s considers that it is not necessary for information to have a direct effect on the environment for it to fall within the definition in the EIR, only that it needs to be linked to a relevant subsection in regulation 2(1). He is of the view that the phrase “any information…on…” contained in regulation 2(1) should be interpreted widely and in line with the purpose expressed in the first recital of the Council Directive 2003/4/EC which the EIR enact.”
The Commissioner concluded that the information David Holland requested was subject to the Regulations and that accordingly UEA had breached them, first by not issuing a refusal notice within the prescribed time, and secondly for not disclosing it.
Verdict: East Anglica hid the climate data from public disclosure. This was left of the the white wash reports.
The part that bothered the most is that all these investigations never addressed the science or the computer code that clearly demonstrated the models use to project future global warming were riddled with fudge factors and made up data. The bureaucratic investigation panels ignored the real issue and focused on the e-mail distractions.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation was critical of the Independent Climate Change Email Review for a lack of openness and transparency in its inquiry. In response, the GWPF announced that it has commissioned its own investigation into the way the three Climategate inquiries have been set up, how they were conducted an how they arrived at their conclusions.Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation said that the conclusions of the Russell inquiry are unlikely to restore public confidence in climate science.
"There is clearly strong evidence of mishandling of the FOI requests and strong criticism of the university's failure to provide data and information. I don't think the university can just claim that this is a vindication."
Ross McKitrick, the University of Guelph professor who with Steve McIntyre broke the hockey stick story, says the Russell review still misses the point.
In comparison to previous inquiries by the House of Commons science and technology committee, the Oxburgh inquiry, and Penn State University, the report of the ICCER under the direction of Sir Muir Russell has gone further in making a detailed review of the concerns arising out of the CRU emails.
Some, but certainly not all, of the concerns have been brought to resolution. For example, with regard to the famous "trick" to "hide the decline", whereas earlier investigations (including Penn State) claimed it was a valid procedure, the ICCER found otherwise, concluding that the figure published in the WMO report "was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together". It is good to finally have agreement that Jones' graph was misleading, and the attempts to explain this away as an innocent turn of phrase are invalid.Richard Horton writing in the UK Guardian:
The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU Team - as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons Select Committee on science. If the academics had used bats' wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn't a matter for any of the panels to judge.I think that we can conclude that Gloria Zane was just engaging in some wishful thinking that the Climategate team has been vindicated. In fact the investigation has just begun. Stay Tuned.
