Climategate enquiries "rushed and inadequate"

Global Warming Policy Foundation

That’s the conclusion of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in a report published yesterday:

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.

Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said:

“The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims.”

Now tell us something we don’t know or hadn’t suspected…

Read the rest of the announcement here, and download the whole report here (PDF).


  1. mark conley says:

    How can this report be taken seriously, Andrew Montford, the chemist and accountant, is hardly independent, a prominent doubter/denier. Whom would Montford like as ‘panel members’?

  2. Sean McHugh says:

    @Mark: To be taken seriously, an investigation needs to seriously address the pertinent points. Monteford did that, the whitewashes didn’t. That’s why Climategate refuses to go away.

  3. Laurie Williams says:

    Mark, good to see that you, as someone who isn’t already converted to the anti-AGW side, are having a look in here.
    Be careful not to unquestioningly adopt the terminology used by people and organisations who push the AGW story. If you say that others are “doubters”, then you give the impression that you are not a doubter, which means you’re gullible. “Denier” could mean anyone who says that any particular thing is not true, so it could be used to refer to people promoting AGW and denying that others who say it’s baseless have anything worthwhile to say.
    If you’re worried about the impartiality of people making statements on these matters, I think you’ll find many on the warmist side whose integrity and even whole thought processes have been thoroughly corrupted by considerations of cash flow and career advancement.
    Take ACM’s advice, and read the content carefully.

  4. The Loaded Dog says:


    “Andrew Montford, the chemist and accountant, is hardly independent, a prominent doubter/denier”

    Oh my, what a relevant point mark conley.

    It seems you are trying to be the “objective and open minded critic”

    Well done.

    Now I have just one simple task for you.

    Apply your critique equally to those who conducted the Climategate inquiry, then come back here and provide argument to defend your findings.

    I just can’t wait for your response…

%d bloggers like this: