Back in July, Roger Harrabin discussed climate sceptics’ concerns that the Oxburgh report into the conduct of the University of East Anglia eco-campaigners involved in Climategate had not been carried out properly, principally because there were allegations that the papers considered by the report team had been selected by the so-called scientists under investigation. In a typical Mr Harrabin analysis, he pretended to be objective, but made it very clear what he thought about the allegations:
The scientific establishment is not used to having its proceedings pulled apart by gadfly inquisitors, often armed with Freedom of Information e-mail chains. Privately, some senior scientists say they find this relentless probing to be nit-picking, mistrustful, obsessive and corrosive of public trust.They see it as a waste of time, and therefore of public money.
Spool forward to today. These “gadfly (Harrabin-speak for nuisance?) inquisitors” who are “corrosive of public trust” have burrowed into the answers given by Lord Oxburgh to a House of Commons select committee and found that his lordship was at best being disingenuous and evasive in his answers in explaining the background to the inquiry. First, he and his team spent the grand total of just seven and a half hours in Norwich investigating the background to Climategate with the scientists involved, and second, it looks increasingly like the list of papers chosen for the inquiry analysis was selected by the scientists under investigation, namely Phil Jones and his East Anglian team. More on the problems is here – a brilliant exposition by Tony Newton, of Harmless Sky.
In short, the fears of those “gadflies” that Mr Harrabin was so quick to dismiss have proved to be substantiated; and the Oxburgh report looks increasingly like it was little more than a devious charade. I could go on, there is much more to this sordid tale of an establishment stitch-up. The point is that our Roger was yet again on the side of the villains, and as quick as ever to condemn his hated “sceptics”. I’ve looked carefully to see if there are any signs of the BBC reporting these latest Oxburgh developments; so far, surprise, surprise, there are none – not a peep. That oft-used BBC approach: bias by omission.