- Prison Planet.com - https://www.prisonplanet.com -

Sneaky, bullying, self-pitying Climategate scientists write to Sir Muir Russell inquiry begging: ‘Make it a whitewash hat trick!’

James Delingpole
London Telegraph
July 1, 2010

Does the shamelessness of the noisome Michael Mann and his Hockey Team know no bounds?

(No. Ed)

Not content with the two whitewash inquiries into Climategate so far, Mann and his Hockey Team (though mainly Mann, probably – the writing is very much in his half-wheedling, half-blustering style) have written to the chairman of the third and final inquiry Sir Muir Russell to “express some serious concerns” and to “provide specific suggestions” as to what his conclusions might be.

Here is a summary of what they urge in the letter, which you can read in full at Bishop Hill [1]. (Hat tip: Nick Mabbs)

1. There should be a cosy arrangement where corrupt, parti-pris scientists should be free to carry on behaving as badly as they like without any risk of their skulduggery being exposed by awkward public investigations. Private emails in which, say, they gloat about the deaths of climate sceptics, fantasise about physical violence against sceptics, plot how to misuse public funds, plot how to discredit scientists who legitimately disagree with them, plot how to shut down journals which don’t act as their amen corner, etc, should remain private.

2. The Muir Russell inquiry should continue to promulgate the great Climate Change lie.

“We believe that it is important to state unequivocally in your findings (and any summary of your findings) that nothing that you have seen calls into question the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.”

3. Don’t listen to McIntyre and McKitrick because they know their stuff, they rumbled us twice with the Hockey Stick and we would much prefer it if you just accept that everything we tell you is true.

“Not all the evidence submitted to the Independent Climate Change Emails Review (ICCER) comes from parties with genuine interest in furthering scientific understanding. We hope that this can be taken into account in evaluating the credibility of submitted evidence.”

Full article here [2]