One of his co-authors, Keith Clayton is listed on CRU Staff page (1993-) and played a part in founding the unit.

Another one, Gifford Miller is perhaps more familiar to CA readers as an author of Kaufmann et al., a case of upside-down Tiljander.

And another, James Scourse has been mentioned on CA in discussion of flipped SST proxies. http://climateaudit.org/2009/04/14/more-z-score-opportunism/

It’s possible in view of his strong links to gov. energy policy and nuclear in particular that he may have attended. But that is only speculation.

I hypothesise here, but as a former civil servant I expect Sir Muir asked what is the outcome that is required? He then made appropriate choices, just as he would have done for his former political ministers.

“I’m starting to wonder why this is on Climate Audit. Seems to me that if the alarmists can get Steve working on this political crap, they’ve neutralised one of their most effective critics. It was the hard maths coming from Climate Audit that got us to where we are today.”

Steve’s post — this one — seems very much in keeping with what he has done all along, i.e., asking for and, thereafter, demanding an accounting or a valid “basis” for underlying claims being made. True, there may be no precise or demonstrable mathematical basis for verifying the on-going commitment of Sir Muir Russell to the public promises he made when he undertook this investigatory obligation. But, there is certainly a very solid way to test whether the inquiry is actually running in accordance with those initial commitments of his — in the first instance, by challenging whether those participating on the Committee are as truly independent as Sir Muir Russell publicly assured everyone that they would be, and that they would come to this work with no “tendencies” for preconception – having previously taken strong positions on the topic that signify or at least hint at a lack of ability to exercise independent judgment.

Those commitments of Russell’s went right to the heart of the problem. The initial suspicion about the science was (and is) that, to some extent, it was “first the sentence, then the verdict” science. And, because of the commitments made by Sir Muir Russell, ones that appear to conflict with the appointment of Boulton, the natural suspicion now is that it may become a “first the sentence, then the verdict” inquiry.

“By all means, someone should be blogging on this. But can someone not take the load of Steve’s shoulders so he can go back to working on the real deal? Does no-one else know enough about the history of these issues?”

We agree that someone should be blogging on this, but I’d argue that Steve is indeed working on the real deal. And, I’d also argue that no one knows as much “about the history of these issues.”

It seems a shame that the great collective analytical brain that is Climate Audit is being wasted on these relative trivialities. It’s all very well showing that people are crooks and can’t be trusted, but you still need to pick holes in their work.”

Dave, I’d say “relative trivialities” is exactly wrong. The defining mission and personnel make up of a body charged with determining whether members of a scientific community have become insular and possibly prejudicial in the pursuance of their work, is about as distant from trivial as you can get. I didn’t think anyone had been called a “crook” as such, but any proffer of evidence regarding, shall we say, “impropriety,” is strengthened by a demonstrable unwillingness to be forthcoming when inconsistencies are laid bare. The prior CV was an issue. The clear appearance is that Geoffrey Boulton tried to dissemble regarding that CV.

Combine that tendency to hide, or paper over, with picking holes in the work, and you have something manifestly more significant than just the occurrence of a few minor errors.

A “few minor errors” by the way, seems to be the current defense in vogue, which was perhaps first articulated by Phil Jones in his BBC interview, and which now has been taken public by Al Gore in his Op-Ed in the NY Times – “the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes.” Note the barely perceptible “at least!”

Michael Mann has recently said that that is what has characterized all that the deniers have done right from the start. In an interview with Chris Mooney (link beow), he said that what all the critics “do is to take some small technical part of an analysis, try to manufacture a controversy about that to, essentially to discredit the work to discredit the conclusions by finding some small potential flaw with one part of an analysis.”

And, it is also the line of defense underscoring the refusal of Rajendra K. Pachauri to step down from the IPCC.

Of course, Michael Mann, for his part, also seems to be taking a more conspiratorial line of defense as well. In that interview with Chris Mooney, he further goes on the offense and blames the entire basis for attacks on the science and on AGW proponents on a conspiratorial effort undertaken back in 2002, and since orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry and Republicans!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_mann_unprecedented_attacks_on_climate_research/

The U of Anglica is EMOTIONAL, confused, befuddling!

It’s pretty obvious who the “psychotic” is.

Mark