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
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
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.