See Channel 4 News

It’s really a tempest in a teacup. My concern is with his past associations at UEA and his strong opinions on AGW.

Steve: I agree that there are multiple issues involving Boulton’s suitability to participate in this inquiry – but this CV thing is very strange. Boulton’s insinuations that the CV was recently doctored are outrageous.

“A purported CV of Professor Boulton in circulation contains a line claiming he has contributed submissions to the IPCC. This is false. He has not, and his name does not appear on any IPCC contributor list.”

It’s a purported CV you see – not his real CV.

I wonder which malicious person has been posting this purported CV on the internet.

Are they saying that Prof Boulton has been posting a purported CV or that someone else has been posting it without his consent?

Are there any other falsehoods contained in this purported CV we should know about?

“Some of the blogs are saying that Professor Geoffrey Boulton is connected to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – is this true?
No, it is not true. Professor Boulton has had no formal contact with the IPCC. He has not been a member of the Panel or made any submissions to it.”

Steve: Cameron, the original Muir Russell criteria were: “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the University or the Climate Science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.” They’re moving the goalposts regularly – Boulton has “links” to the Climate Science community – “links” is now redefined to “making submissions” to the IPCC – which doesn’t, to my knowledge, receive “submissions” in any event.

Subject: DATE CHANGE- Open Forum:
Has Our Perception of Climate ScienceChanged?
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:38:01 +0000
From: Dave Bell To: all@lists.geos.ed.ac.uk
Dear Everyone, Due to clashes in timing with the Hutton Club, we have decided to movethe open climate forum back one day, but the location will remain thesame. Please amend your diaries to: _*Thursday 25th February at 4.30pm in the Grant Institute main lecturetheatre*_ As a reminder: Climate science has recently come under fire in the media over stolenemails from the University of East Anglia and questions over aspects ofthe IPCC report. A recent poll has shown a large increase in publicscepticism of the science, likely as a response to these events. Giventhe media hype on these issues and the spotlight on climate scientists,we feel it important to ask as scientists; has this changed outperception of climate science? The forum will begin with introductory talks from IPCC authors GabiHegerl and Mark Rounsevell, followed by an open floor discussion. Beer,wine and cheese will follow at 5.30pm in the Grant Institute’s CockburnMuseum, with a chance for further discussion. Everyone, regardless of research group, is welcome to attend. This isset up as a school wide event.Apologies for any inconvenience caused by the change of date.
Kindest Regards,Dave Bell & Matt Unterman (Oceans and Climate Group)

Works: on the processes that condition the stability of large ice sheets, particularly the hydrculic and deformational processes at the ice sheet bed; modelling the dynamic behaviour of former ice sheets and their geological products; and the future evolution of glacier cover in the Himalayas. [emphasis added]

It’s nice to see that there’s a real expert on “the future evolution of glacier cover in the Himalayas” standing up for something approximating the IPCC’s 2035 figure. At least he’s pushing it back 15 years, instead of pushing it up to 2030 as NASA’s website did.

Also, the odd plural could, for example, mean that he served on more than one IPCC, eg IPCC3 and IPCC4.

Boulton could easily clarify this by stating exactly which “Intergovernmental Panels” he meant.

Even if this was the IPCC, I don’t see that this would disqualify him from an investigation of CRUgate per se. But since Muir Russell is now assuring us that he was not associated with the IPCC, it would be appropriate to straighten out this seeming inconsistency.