Those of you who have read Climategate One Year on - the Curious Missing Police Report
by John O'Sullivan, may be interested to know that John has now followed up this article by an open letter to the Chief Constable involved with the Criminal Investigations at CRU, University of East Anglia.
As you will read below, John has been inspired by the recent letter from Douglas J. Keenan: Reviews into the Climatic Research Unit's E-mails at the University of East Anglia
Dear Chief Constable,
Re: Criminal Investigations at CRU, University of East Anglia
I am a prominent international science writer and legal analyst who has corresponded already over the ‘Climategate’ scandal with ACPO.
I have been advised by them that Norfolk Police are responsible for investigating the so-called ‘Climategate’ controversy that has embroiled the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia, and that I should properly address my questions to you.
I write at this time because I am now in receipt of compelling evidence of an international conspiracy to commit fraud among certain government-funded climate scientists.
The evidence is against Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia and his co-author of a fraudulent study, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany. The public is now aware that Jones evaded criminal prosecution under FOI laws due to the elapse of the statute of limitations.
I have a series of questions to which answers may be of considerable public interest. It is thus my duty as an investigative writer on matters of science and law to kindly seek your considered response. In particular, I'd like to ask you to address your feedback with special focus on evidence provided by Douglas J. Keenan. Keenan is one of several correspondents featured in the Climategate emails and has long been suspicious of criminal intent by Jones and others.You may obtain fuller details of Keenan's evidence from his online statement located here:
As you may see, what Keenan raises was somehow overlooked by those ‘independent’ reviews of Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell conducted earlier this year, but cannot now be overlooked by police. To my mind, Keenan’s evidence is compelling and shows that inter alia Jones and co-conspirators have, since 1990, persistently and falsely misrepresented climatic data in their research. Falsehoods relate, among others, to weather station data from Beijing and Shanghai which form the basis of scientific claims concerning temperature anamolies seen in urban areas around the world.
As you can see from Keenan's statement, such anomalies were long ago made known to Jones by Keenan. But Jones declined to make any corrections in his work and continued to profit from it despite its failings. The effect of this omission to correct a known fault is that a substantial body of international scientific study has been misled over the role of secondary heating effects generated in town and cities (known as the 'urban heat island effect'). The result of what may now be inferred as a deliberately uncorrected ‘error’ is that Jones and his international co-conspirators continue to unduly benefit from research grants and prestige. It appears that to date no proper remedy for such misconduct/criminality has been applied by those government inquiries and your good selves at Norfolk Police.
Keenan has made himself available to present his evidence to the authorities. Indeed, it has been widely reported in the press. In August 2007 he submitted a draft article on these allegations to the journal Energy & Environment. The journal editor then sent the draft to Jones. Jones replied with many comments
, but did not attempt to rebut the allegation against him.
On 2 February 2010, in the wake of Climategate, The Guardian published a front-page story that reported on Keenan’s allegations. The Guardian is a major advocate for global warming; yet the report was highly positive. The story was re-reported around the world. Later that day, the University of East Anglia issued a press release to clarify some issues. Yet the press release
did not attempt to rebut the allegation.
In light of this and other evidence available to you, I would be most grateful if you would please kindly address the following?
1.Whether your ‘Climategate’ investigations are ongoing or now complete ( if so will be you be making any public announcement?)
2.Whether you have sought to ascertain evidence relating not just to the alleged ‘hacking’ of CRU Internet servers, but also to the alleged crime of fraud related to the refusal of CRU staff to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests;
3.Being that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) affirmed that Prof. Phil Jones may have had a case to answer but could not be prosecuted in relation to any FOIA offences due to the elapse of the statute of limitations, would you advise you are proceeding to investigate matters as per the Fraud Act; insofar as charges of conspiracy to commit fraud (no statute of limitations) may still be timely brought against any CRU staff and other parties where evidence exists supportive of conspiracy;
4.Being that the FOIA requests germane to this matter relate to missing/destroyed meta-data pertaining to CRU’s key function to produce ‘homogenized’ climate data (not ‘raw’ temperature records) and being that such allegedly withheld homogenized data was the gravamen of FOIA requests and such alleged data fraud, please confirm whether this issue has been addressed by your investigation;
5.The official Oxburgh Climategate Inquiry officially affirmed CRU staff as poor data handlers. Like other inquiries they did not address the science. However, Oxburgh made recommendations that outside statistical experts should necessarily be part of any review of CRU climate data to pick up on any mishandling of such data. In this regard, would you please advise whether Norfolk Police has consulted independent outside statistical experts so as to ascertain with due diligence whether CRU staff were guilty of mere incompetence (exculpatory) or rather of possible intentional criminal fraud?
6.If you have been unable to locate the specific homogenized data identified requested to make such a determination (in 5.), what action do you propose to take against Jones in the light of his email admissions of his intentions (mens rea
) to solicit support from colleagues in the proposed destruction of all such implicating evidence rather than submit to scrutiny? (Conspiracy not being time barred as per Fraud Act)?
On behalf of my readers around the world I would like to thank you in advance for assisting me with these questions.