The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Supplementary memorandum submitted by Ronald K Bolton (CRU 25a)

  I understand that you, Mr Chairman, are standing down from Parliament shortly. May I take this opportunity to thank you in advance for all your efforts, in education and otherwise. I understand your decision, although you are precisely the sort of person who is needed to protect the people from bad government. It may be that public pressure over AGW, swine flu, etc will cause government to rely more on sound science and less on what seem like PR stunts. One can hope. It would be better for the country if you stayed, but you will leave a memorial in what you have done. I believe the Climategate investigation will be probably the most important you have done. Thank you for what you have done to help the British people.

  It seems that you used the term "climate deniers" and subsequently apologized. That is an emotionally-charged term, which for that very reason has unfortunately become much used by those wishing to stop any criticism of the manmade global warming hypothesis. It is therefore easy to use the word "denier" when one means "sceptic". My personal belief is that the wording used, or even whether you believe global warming is real, is not so important as whether one has done one's job properly. If you have properly investigated and are sure you have done the right things, you can be proud of your actions.

  I realize that with the election looming, there can be no really detailed investigation of CRU's actions, and certainly not of whether global warming is real, particularly as you are also investigating a half dozen other matters at the same time.

  Can I therefore suggest the following:

    1. There should be a police investigation into the activities of certain scientists. I understand the police are investigating the leaking at CRU but nothing more. With the evidence you have, particularly the memorandum from Dr Benny Peiser, there seems clear prima facie evidence that crimes have been committed. It also seems clear that this is wider than UEA.

    2. There should be a detailed investigation by Parliament, after the election, into the corruption of science to support publicly funded scares that have no basis in reality. AGW is the most important, but there are many others. This last winter has been the coldest in Britain for over 30 years, and America has been covered in snow. And temperatures worldwide have declined for 15 years. Yet we are told the world is warming. Similarly, we have been told we are at risk of swine flu and coerced to get vaccinated. Yet the scientific evidence is that that flu is very mild, that many more people died of the vaccine than of that flu, and that scientists having links to Big Pharma were involved in hyping this up.

    3. There should be a detailed investigation by Parliament, after the election, into whether man-made global warming is really the danger it is said to be. The UN and others are pushing politicians to support AGW. Many independent scientists and others say AGW is wrong. Certainly much of the evidence supporting AGW has been discredited, as have many of its supporters. There is a push to spend billions and alter lives permanently. Before that, there needs to be a proper examination of what the science really shows.

    4. There should be as much openness and public involvement as possible in the above investigations, as well as in normal scientific matters at places like UEA. This committee has set an example for those matters that others could follow.

Thank you again.

March 2010

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 31 March 2010