This is the caveat that makes the review valid but irrelevant. It is the same one that was used in the Jones/HadCru/Climategate three investigations.

This caveat is also in all reserve engineering studies of the oil and gas industry. It is why Shell can have a one-time 40% writedown in their (mostly from Nigerian) reserves without anyone being held accountable. It is also why directors of companies – like government ministers – avoid prosecution. The error, if found later, is always that of someone else believed “reasonably” to behave professionally, in both an ethical and technical sense. We cannot predict the malfeance of others, the thinking goes.

When something important is questioned, best intentions are not just what needs review. Results need review. Accountability is not, apparently, a socially important attritube of management (consider that lying about weapons of mass destruction never came back to hurt George W. even when the result was war and the destruction of a foreign country).

I understand that the NZScCoalition is taking a second stab at getting a reappraisal of the data and RESULTS of work on the New Zealand temperature records. Also that a similar attempt is being made in Australia with the BOM data and position. There must be a huge threat perceived at a governmental level about the demand for truthfulness vs “truthiness”.

The publlic is manipulated on a regular basis. As Tony Blair admitted, a FOIA makes “good government” difficult – as long as good government requires lying, obfuscating and making regular deals with the devil. Which, apparently, it does. Shouldn’t, needn’t, but right now it does.

Good luck with forcing a review that would undermine government credibility (deserved as it is). At least we are not in the days where comments about riding one of a “troublesome priest” don’t lead to the steps of a cathedral.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/15/climate-audit-requested-of-the-australian-bom-and-csiro/