Seems to me that Richard Nixon was to be pushed out of office for this type of behavior.
**************************************************
Session 2009-10
31 March 2010
CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT SAY MPs
The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:
"Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided."
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.
On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—"trick" and "hiding the decline"—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.
The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity". But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.
On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.
It’s the Leftist way - the label is the thing.
They declared AGW real, so the fact that they lied about the science can’t matter, because they already declared AGW real. So therefore the lying scientists didn’t lie, because they can’t lie about something that has already been labeled real.
Henry Waxman is calling three CEOs to answer to his committee because they calculated HCR will cost them money. He is OPENLY admitting that since HCR has been labeled as saving money, the CEOs must be lying - by definition. And he’s delusional enough to think he can defy their actual accounting numbers, which simply address a direct tax, in open committee. And why? Because the tax has been labeled a savings by the government, that’s why.
Collectivism requires group insanity to work, because sane people talk about facts that undermine the group lies. So how do they attack this enemy of the group? By labelling them that way - nothing else is necessary.
Once again, the British Parliament proves that it has no equal for brazen arrogance in applying whitewash to a scandal. Now the members can get back to the more important work of padding their expense accounts.
The email evidence only showed what pricks and zealots they were. The evidence for the crime was contained in the code and documentation (remarks) to the code. Anyone with a basic understanding of FORTRAN can see what they were doing to cook the books.
Did Committee on Silly Walks even look at the source code?