Comments on: Inquirygate: Official British Climategate e-mail review falling apart

By: Taruni

Taruni — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:14:04 +0000

This band of Whitewash Wizards have begun to unband even before they can do any more harm is excellent news.Climate-Science-Fiction will now be recognised as such and the backers as Climate-Fictionalists.
Think for a moment “Climate Change” ruse has brought so many changes in many other spheres of our understanding how the World works and what part the crooks and the fraudsters play in it and how they have positioned themselves to benefit themselves and their cohorts to the exclusion of most of Humankind.
Any entity connected to the UN must be looked upon with extreme suspicion for it is obvious the UN CAN BE and HAS BEEN MOULDED to benefit very few and to harm many.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:32:08 +0000

“Allegations of bias against Review member rejected”

see Independent Climate Change em@il Review at http://www.cce-review.org/News.php

By: Yertizz

Yertizz — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:42:30 +0000

Whatever his degree, Gormless Brown is so far removed from reality he probably believes the sun rises in the west.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:28:50 +0000

My reference (previous post) to “this morning” refers to the UK.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:26:49 +0000

The enquiry is rapidly falling apart – see Climate Audit and Bishop Hill this morning. There’s an important story here. But Boulton hasn’t (yet) “jumped ship” and it destroys the credibility of your blog to keep saying so, despite your comment at 12:24 yesterday.

By: Marty69

Marty69 — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:56:48 +0000

If Boulton hasn’t already jumped ship can you really imagine Russell letting him continue after this ?

Might have been a better idea for this to have come out after the inquiry had started. Really put the cat amongst the pigeons. They would have had to re-start with a new panel or be known as sitting as biased with a pre-determined result in mind (as if they’re not anyway).

And as for Brown – is it not his government who are offering research grants “…to find evidence of MMGW or MMCC”. Who’s going to look for, and report, conflicting evidence with their livelyhood at stake.

By: gb

gb — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:30:24 +0000

Gordan Brown? Do you imagine he on the outside of this scam?

By: G. Watkins

G. Watkins — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:16:53 +0000

Well written comments, again. Gordan Brown’s most recent statements are not encouraging, although someone pointedly suggested his degree from Glasgow was not exactly science based!

By: Editor

Editor — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:24:25 +0000

John asked me to add rumored to have quit while he checks his sources. Thanks.

By: jazznick

jazznick — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:58:15 +0000

All climate scientists are (or should be) skeptics.

We are continually being told that the science is “robust” so
let the inquiry team be made up of all skeptics !!

Peer-review has been given a bad name: so many of the participants having reviewed each others work or ‘nodded papers through’. We have been lied to repeatedly and I have lost track of the number of …gates we have had over the past few weeks !

True open debate has not been allowed (as the warmists have run away and hidden behind empty ‘settled’ statements).

A full peer-review undertaken through the process of an inquiry would be more open and transparent than anything that has gone before.

Profs Ball, Christy & Lindzen would be my qualified dream-team with
McIntyre & McKitrick as witnesses.

I do not see how ANY inquiry can arrive at an acceptable outcome
to the British people (or the rest of the world) unless the panel are all ‘devil’s advocates’.

If the science is truly robust it must withstand full scrutiny or fail – that is the scientific way – or has this been sacrificed in favour of the lure of riches, global power and influence ? …. I suspect it has.

Go on – prove me wrong Sir.