Bishop Hill has on his blog an item about a talk he had with Graham Stringer, one of the group who declared Phil Jones not found guilty after a sparse review of select questions, with little investigation. Note that Graham Stringer was the one dissenter in the group, thus not a whitewasher.
A few days ago I wondered how the Science and Technology Select Committee had managed to exonerate Phil Jones on several of the charges against him without actually having any evidence for the defence. Despite having previously expressed a willingness to discuss the report, committee chairman Phil Willis subsequently refused to explain this extraordinary set of circumstances.
Smells like a cover-up to me. All of a sudden the head guy doesn’t want to talk and is hiding out (reminds me of Al Gore after Climategate). More CO2 Insanity in the making.
We spoke yesterday and I found him very engaging. He was keen to emphasise the time constraints that the committee was operating under and also the fact that several members of the committee are utterly convinced of the CAGW case, although he also said he thought that they were not dogmatic in their beliefs.
“Utterly convinced,” “not dogmatic.” Sounds like a new oxymoron to me. Also sounds like the “fix” was in.
I particularly raised the question of Ross McKitrick’s allegation that Phil Jones had inserted into the IPCC report some statements that had no basis in the scientific literature. I came away with the impression that the committee had not specifically examined this issue, and that their exoneration of Jones was presumably therefore limited to the specific questions that they had looked at
Well lets not dare go outside the scope of the investigation or we might find something out we don’t want to enter into the equation. I guess it must be perfectly OK with this bunch that Phil included things in a report of such significance that are unscientific.
I think they need to change the definition of “exoneration” in the dictionary to “whitewash.”
I hope someone has the guts to nose further into this. “Exonerated” in this case is tantamount to saying Adolph Hitler is “exonerated” because he was a nice guy because who liked German Shepards. AKA: Just ignore all the real evidence and pick out a tidbit or two that get your guy off the hook.
I’m still trying to understand this one. I think I’d have a better chance of proving perpetual motion was possible.
This investigation would make a good skit for a Monty Python show. Let’s see…..Eric Idle as Phil Jones and John Cleese as Phil Willis.
Source: Bishop Hill