Comments on: The Inquiry Secretariat

By: Bruce P

Bruce P — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:30:10 +0000

Reading some of the comments over on the Guardian, UK, found some info on the BP Link. David Eyton is the BP Research Director that’s on the panel. He may be biased towards AGW. Under his leadership, they funded a contract with Princeton to run 10 years, but have since renewed it for another 5 to study carbon sequestration among other things.

Link to announcement about extension:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/10/17/21842/

The head of the Princeton Environmental Department is Michael Oppenheimer, who is a true believer.

Link to a Princeton University page with an interview with Oppenheimer:
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/home/02/0312_climate/hmcap.html

It’s beginning to look like the deck is stacked.

By: Glen Raphael

Glen Raphael — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:38:56 +0000

On Firefox you need to pop up the “Select Category” list, then notice that it’s a scrolling list and scroll all the way to the bottom before Unthreaded comes into view. I didn’t notice it the first time. Having been *told* there’s an Unthreaded hiding in there I was able to find it, but I wouldn’t have thought to look there.

Maybe you could put a note/link about this in the “NOTICE” section on top right? Something like “Please stay on topic. Off-topic discussion should be done in the latest [Unthreaded] posting, not the current post.”

By: Robert Christopher

Robert Christopher — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:48:42 +0000

“… the very first thing they should do is go through all their published papers and retract any for which the data has been “lost”. …”

The first two steps you list should be done in ‘audit mode’. If so, climate science expertise would not be needed, just auditing skills, with perhaps a good “dash of science”. Papers usually have references to help traceability, and experts from any field could be co-opted in. And it’s not as if the report could not be reviewed by those closer to the subject at a later date. If some papers were re-issued without any changes, it wouldn’t be such a problem, just a sign of being thorough. After all nothing is perfect. Iterations, iterations, iterations; it’s the only way!

By: Jimchip

Jimchip — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:26:15 +0000

Re: justbeau (Feb 15 11:02), Well, this email shows Shell in charge of SRES Scenarios and this one, a personal favorite, shows a little CRU lobbying of BP and Shell. Others show the offer of partnership as long as there is input on research. Corporate staffs can be real crack teams. Maybe Shell and BP will just donate some staffs time and make the process really slick.

By: justbeau

justbeau — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:02:31 +0000

Its strange to see another example of BP bestowing funding on - snip. Previously it was BP shovelling money to the Love Guru. Now BP is said to fund the Royal Society of Edinburgh, led by Professor Boulton. Maybe BP should start putting more conditions into its grants, requiring data transparency. This would be a way for BP to promote the cause of better scientific methods within climate science. Steve: I don't use the term "warmist" and I repeatedly ask others not to as well. It fosters a very unhealthy way of thinking.

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:31:22 +0000

Re: ChrisJ (Feb 15 00:35), Steve might want to take this little byplay to heart. I was able to figure it out relatively quickly, but I've been on this site from the beginning. A newbie will tend to be totally lost. This has legs in terms of explaining some of the apparent arrogance of the "team" as well as the desire of Steve himself to have the methods used in producing climate databases. Think of displays in the bottom of cabinet drawers in a basement on Alpha Centuri.

By: Dave L.

Dave L. — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:02:48 +0000

Well, The Russell Review Team will NEVER have any credibility until a doctoral level expert in statistics is appointed as a full member. Lacking the latter (or equivalent) reduces the Russell Team to another bumbling bunch of scientific bureaucrats unqualified to properly evaluate the statistical methodology employed by the subject Hockey Team members. Maybe the nickname for the Russell Team could be “NAS Panel II’, because it certainly appears to have the “same game plan” and intends to play “the same game”.

By: Cameron Rose

Cameron Rose — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:30:03 +0000

The ‘local Edinburgh blog’ will be mine. I have corrected the original post to clarify that Review members Peter Clarke and Geoffrey Boulton may not be residential neighbours – but the University website does show them both as having offices at the King’s Buildings.

http://cameronrose.blogspot.com/2010/02/local-scientist-under-pressure-to.html

Steve: I would have included a link, but hadn’t noted down the link at the time. Thanks for this,

By: ChrisJ

ChrisJ — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:35:20 +0000

Oh. I see. You need to use the “Select Category” button to find unthreaded… -chris

By: ChrisJ

ChrisJ — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:33:15 +0000

umm there is no unthreaded on the left. On the right there are some recent comments. I used the browser “find” to search on unthreaded… -chris