Another Tainted Inquiry

Back online from a short hiatus in blogging (see comment below.)

It’s pretty discouraging that yet another inquiry is tainted by the selection of their panel. The University of East Anglia, seemingly emboldened by getting away with Geoffrey Boulton’s appointment to the ethics panel, have become much bolder in choosing the science panel.

Chairman Oxburgh, a former oil company executive, is a green entrepeneur. Kerry Emanuel is a Michael Mann coauthor who blamed Climategate not on the scientists who composed the emails, but on an adverse ‘public relations campaign’ (MIT debate here)

He is far more concerned with the well-funded “public relations campaign” to drown out or distort the message of climate science, which he links to “interests where billions, even trillions are at stake…” This “machine … has been highly successful in branding climate scientists as a bunch of sandal-wearing, fruit-juice drinking leftist radicals engaged in a massive conspiracy to return us to agrarian society…

Lisa Graumlich is a coauthor with MBH’s Malcolm Hughes – see here – both are presently at the same institute of the University of Arizona. The above link has as a scientific reference:

Hughes, M. K. and L. J. Graumlich. 1996. Climatic variations and forcing mechanisms of the last 2000 years. Volume 141. Multi-millenial dendroclimatic studies from the western United States. NATO ASI Series, pp. 109-124.

This volume was proceedings of a NATO workshop – edited by.. Phil Jones.

Jones, P.D., Bradley, R.S. and Jouzel, J. (Editors), 1996
“Climate Variations and Forcing Mechanisms of the Last 2000 Years.”
649pp Springer-Verlag, Berlin

Graumlich’s exposition connecting tree rings to global warming is on youtube here.

Sympathetic journalists attempted to pre-empt criticism of these inappropriate selections, by stating in advance that these choices would be criticized.

For example, Fiona Harvey of the Financial Times fatuously observed:

But already his appointment has been attacked by climate sceptics, as he has strong business interests in biofuels, is chairman of the wind company Falck Renewables, and a board member of Climate Change Capital, a major investor in carbon credits….

But then, who would be good enough to head up such an inquiry, in the eyes of the sceptic community? Lord Lawson?

And similarly at Nature blog:

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, noted approvingly that the panel headed by Lord Oxburgh was made up of “high-quality” individuals of authority and integrity.

“We will now see predictable attempts by so-called ‘sceptics’ to discredit the panel before it has even started work so that its findings can be conveniently dismissed unless it hands a propaganda goal to those who promote denial and complacency about the causes and consequences of climate change,” he added.

And so it came to pass…

To suggest that the only alternatives are Lord Lawson or a panel led by a green entrepreneur with panelists who are not only activists but Mann/Hughes coauthors (Emanuel, Graumlich) is absurd.

I, for one, have never suggested that Lawson would be an appropriate selection for such an inquiry. Nor is it something that I would suggest. I come from a family and social framework which expects inquiries to be carried out scrupulously and carefully. One of my grandfathers, James C. McRuer, a prominent Canadian judge, chaired a prominent Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights in the late 1960s when I was at university – copies of which were given to his many grandchildren. He believed that this Commission was the most important work in a long career (in which he had previously been Chief Justice of the Ontario trial court.) Some years later, I learned that he had also chaired a commission of inquiry into the famous Gouzenko spy ring. One of my friends, Paul Cavalluzzo, was counsel to two important recent Canadian commissions – an inquiry into a tainted water scandal at Walkerton, Ontario (resulting in a number of deaths) – and an inquiry into the detention and torture of a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, in Syria.

I make this somewhat atypical digression into personal biographical details because I resent the idea that I automatically think that any and all inquiries are automatically suspect. I don’t. I think that inquiries (royal commissions) can play a healthy role in resolving disputes.

I think that the University of East Anglia had both an opportunity and an obligation to establish impartial and untainted inquiries. Kerry Emanuel is not an appropriate selection. Nor is Lisa Graumlich. Nor is Lord Oxburgh. They should resign and let the balance of the panel proceed without them.

98 Comments

  1. stacey
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The establishment in the UK now hold the British people in such contempt that they will do anything however unethical to protect themselves. The University are not content with being discredited they now wish to become disreputable.

    • curious
      Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Stacey – I think you are right about the contempt but they are so far gone they do not know what ethics are. I am at a loss to know what can change things – the poll tax riots came back to mind today, however I can’t imagine what would get people onto the streets over climate science corruption. Maybe the Science and Technology Committee will surprise us all.

  2. Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “They should resign and let the balance of the panel proceed without them. ”

    We cannot assume that the others are unbiased simply because they have no known connection, I didn’t recognize some of the other names until they were pointed out here. In fact after so many scandalous and intentionally biased appointments, it’s apparent that there is a motive at work here. The whole thread could degenerate from a comment like this, but it’s reality, and we’re forced to live in the real world.

    The intent appears very much to be “sweep it under the rug with an official statement”, It would be comforting if anyone could give some hope that there will be a better outcome.

  3. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back, Steve. What with Alien Abduction Day and all, some of us were becoming concerned. I’ll be looking forward to your post on the selection of the InterAcademy Council by the UN to review the IPCC.

  4. Denny
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Great article, Steve!

    Truely, should one act “surprised”?? I’m not but its sad to see a term used “independent” on this issue but I don’t understand that after “ClimateGate” that no one will catch this move. It’s that “little town” support that “always” get’s things done…;-)

  5. Dave L.
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here is Kerry Emanuel’s editorial in the Boston Globe on February 15, 2010, entitled “Climate changes are proven fact”:

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/02/15/climate_changes_are_proven_fact/

    Lindzen was so disturbed by Kerry’s editorial that he wrote a rebuttal in the Globe on February 19, 2010, entitled “The sound of alarm”:

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/02/19/the_sound_of_alarm/

    First sentence in Lindzen’s response:
    KERRY EMANUEL’S Feb. 15 op-ed “Climate changes are proven fact’’ is more advocacy than assessment.

    There is no question where Emanuel stands on the science of global warming.

  6. Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, we know you are scrupulously fair. The respect for justice you were brought up with is part of why you were the right person for this herculean task. All attempts to discredit you will fail. The Royal Society and its media apologists will bring dishonour on their own heads if they continue in this pride and foolishness. Nullius in Verba. Heaven cares not who has the official badge. You have lived by it.

  7. Pat Frank
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I watched the MIT debate featuring Kerry Emanuel and Richard Lindzen. The debate was supposed to be about the scientific support, or its lack, for AGW. Kerry Emanuel literally began his exposition with references to “the Machine” supposedly financing skepticism. That is, in a debate about science, Kerry Emanuel, a practiced academic climate physicist, descended immediately into partisan politics. And thought that a contextually credible argument.

    More than anything, his behavior betrays the biased thinking that seems so automatic, to be so appropriate, and is so unquestioned among the AGW supporters. Emanuel clearly believed that references to “the Machine” — and he made many of them — were apropos to a debate about scientific evidence. So far, has political corruption corroded the understanding of normative scientists.

    One person challenged him about the existence “the Machine,” by the way, which Emanuel countered by mentioning money spent by some group, maybe ExxonMobil (I don’t remember. But no mention of the political money raised and spent by GreenPeace.) No one challenged him about his thinking that polemical arguments were proper for a debate about science, though.

    With that sort of partisan mindlessness by a leading climate scientist, is it any wonder that the foxes would appoint a panel of reynards to investigate crimes against chickens?

    Lindzen, by the way, displayed his usual high professional integrity and his resistance to the widespread slide in normative scientific ethics, by strictly arguing science.

    • P Gosselin
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t at all believe they are interested in cleaning house. What’s in it for them to do so? Before Climategate, the system showered all sorts of benefits on them.
      I see many signs that the opposite of whst’s needed is about to happen. They are planning a vigorous counter-attack.

  8. Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I disagree with the notion that Kerry Emanuel should resign. He has proven in the years since his 2005 Nature paper that he has the ability and the scientific integrity to change his opinions when new evidence presents itself. This was on display in his recent BAMS TC climate modeling paper in which he came up with conclusions at odds with the consensus. This was likely reflected in the recent Knutson et al. (2010) Nature Geoscience review paper.

    If Emanuel resigned or was replaced with someone worse, then an opportunity for a leading world scientist to use his credentials and podium to declare that indeed wrongdoing occurred would likely be forever gone. While Mann has been a co-author with Emanuel, it is really only with statistical studies on TC activity, and not climate change or proxy related stuff. Thus the conflict of interest is not that apparent.

    • timetochooseagain
      Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

      With respect, Ryan, Emanuel is no doubt capable of rational thought and normal science, but he has already formed an opinion about Climategate. No one who already has an opinion should be on a panel which is meant to be an objective investigation.

      • Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

        That was the point of my comment. Even if he has formed an opinion, Dr. Emanuel is entirely capable of coming to a different conclusion with better information. Since I doubt he reads this blog or other right-wing outlets sympathetic to skeptical ideas, his information likely comes first hand from his colleagues in the climate change community and the liberal media in Boston.

        • Pat Frank
          Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 12:54 AM | Permalink

          Ryan: “other right-wing outlets sympathetic to skeptical ideas”

          Climateaudit, as Steve’s blog, is not a “right-wing outlet.” Nor is it “sympathetic to skeptical ideas” as such.

          It’s evidently sympathetic to supportable scientific or mathematical ideas. That those may in turn support skepticism about AGW is due to outcome, not to bias.

          Let’s also give Kerry Emanuel the respect of supposing he comes up with his own ideas.

        • Dean Boulding
          Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:16 AM | Permalink

          “Climateaudit, as Steve’s blog, is not a “right-wing outlet.” Nor is it “sympathetic to skeptical ideas” as such.”

          I agree in general that this blog is not about a left- or right-wing philosophy. But it was clearly established as a vehicle for Steve to air his concerns about climate science, and to allow others to do similarly. In the last couple of months, I haven’t seen any articles promoting any other viewpoints. More distressingly, I haven’t seen any science on this blog in months. Have the skeptics given up on the science? One would think so from what I can find online. (The exception is Steve’s posting of his submission to the UK inquiry, which I think is an example of the “cherry picking” he so roundly condemns elsewhere.)

          Instead, we’ve endless attacks on political processes and of individuals. I think this article, for example, raises a legitimate concern,

          snip – language

        • Dean Boulding
          Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:24 AM | Permalink

          Sorry, I take that back. There was one post about hurricanes, with three predictions of increases for 2010 and one linked by “Told ya so” with older data, although showing that current numbers of hurricanes/year are similar to the 70s. I’m not sure if it was meant as a rebuttal.

        • dougie
          Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:53 PM | Permalink

          Hi Dean

          While I agree with “But it was clearly established as a vehicle for Steve to air his concerns about climate science, and to allow others to do similarly.”

          Steve has been digging/obstructed on all this for years (5+?).
          I’ve read his early posts & nobody used to comment!! (for ages he was on his own).
          but he persisted & gradually people chimed in.
          so it’s only natural he would like to see this through to the end (or new beginning) with a righteous result. (he has a lot off time invested & no big oil backers for those years to compensate).

          so he now, at 60+ feels the need to get back into making some money to make up for years lost.
          may be quite on the science for a while, but I’m sure bender & the regulars will give Steve all the new posts you crave when he gets back.

        • Dave
          Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

          For what it’s worth, I think Climategate was a huge strategic victory for the AGW brigade. It distracted their leading critics – people like Steve – from the science, and pulled them into the politics. My view would be that Steve should trust there are enough interested parties to keep airing the dirty political laundry, and go back to the science. We know by now that some of the people involved are basically crooks and shysters, but that’s (quite rightly) not going to convince anyone that their science was wrong until someone pokes holes in it.

        • Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

          Since Dr. Emanuel will be visiting Florida State to give a seminar, perhaps he will address the controversy associated with his appointment to the panel, or maybe not. He is clearly qualified and questioning his motives or integrity simply lumps you in with the people you rightly criticize for lack of balance or advocacy.

        • Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 12:59 AM | Permalink

          That isn’t how it works in any kind of fair hearing though. If you are predisposed to innocent or guilty, no matter how willing to change, you do not belong on the jury. Without questioning his integrity nor ability to change his mind, he clearly doesn’t belong there.

        • Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 3:16 AM | Permalink

          “(…)this blog or other right-wing outlets(…)”

          Say what?

        • baahumbug
          Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

          Re: Ryan N. Maue (Mar 23 22:47),

          I only have one thing to say.

          Justice must be SEEN to be done.

        • Gord Richens
          Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

          So Dr. Emanuel has a filter and he uses it to predetermine what is true and false on the matter. Such would normally excuse him from jury duty.

    • Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I understand what you are writing, but I wonder if there aren’t far better choices of people who wouldn’t have to interact with the Climate-gators in the next conference. This issue isn’t so deep into the science that someone non-involved can’t figure it out. That opens the possibility of choice of the panel from other fields.

      They really have a big hurdle here. The world will see the decision in a one or two sound bytes/quotes and they really needed to avoid the appearance of a pre-ordained outcome. I’m not going to be very accommodating to a ‘nothing to see here’ style decision either way and that appears to me that it is the most likely outcome. Consider that ‘nothing to see here’ is what was reported in the news by their peers across the world media already.

  9. Peter Dunford
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 8:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s an unfortunate fact of life in the UK now, for which Climategate was barely a hiccup, that being a died in the wool climate alarmist is not an extreme position, rather it is the normal centre-ground mainstream point off view for government or main-stream-media.

    It is relentlessly promoted in schools. You will not get government sourced grant funding for a research project to disprove any aspect of the hypothesis.

    Without support for the AGW hypothesis you will not get a job reporting at the BBC, Sky, The Times, (Bothe Murdoch) or Guardian. The dissenters revealed to date have to be careful how far they go, and would not have got their jobs if their views had been known when they were appointed. They willnot keep them if they go too far.

    The UK government has probably been the major promoter of the AGW message, do not expect rational or balanced views to emerge from any inquiry promoted by the UK government or from a UK government funded institution. Just not going to happen.

    There is not one important “official inquiry” into any controversial set of events in the last decade where the conclusions could not be placed in the “whitewash” category.

    As a UK citizen, I continue to be ashamed of what is done in my name, and though I complain about it, I know it makes no difference whatsoever. I wonder at the risk complaining brings. Ours is not a normal country any more. The state has massive power over us, and cares not what we think.

    Please, anyone in the UK reading this, make it clear to UEA graduates, tell their Alma Mater they are ruining their prospects. Advise anyone not to go there to study.

    • snowmaneasy
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I agree with you completely and in support of your statements I have just today received the following from the office of the Prime Minister…this was in response to a petition regarding the UEA…

      The Government’s response
      The Government believes that all these allegations should be investigated transparently.

      An independent review is currently examining the scientific conduct of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and is due to report its findings later in the spring. More information on the review can be found at: http://www.cce-review.org/. The University of East Anglia also recently announced that there will be a separate review to examine the CRU’s key scientific publications. The findings of both these reviews will be made public.

      The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is also investigating the matter. On 1 March the Select Committee heard evidence from a wide range of contributors, including Professor Jones, who has temporarily stepped down from his post as Director of CRU.

      CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.

      Our confidence that the Earth is warming is taken from multiple sources of evidence and not only the HadCRUT temperature record, which CRU scientists contribute to. The same warming trend is seen in two independent analyses carried out in the United States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These analyses draw on the same pool of temperature data as HadCRUT, but use different methodologies to produce analyses of temperature change through time. Further evidence of this warming is found in data from instruments on satellites, and in trends of declining arctic sea ice and rising sea levels.

      Science is giving us an increasingly clear picture of the risks we face from climate change. With more research, we can better understand those risks, and how to manage them. That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.

      • Punksta
        Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

        The UEA is an example of an institution totally pre-committed to the notion of DAGW (D = Dangerous).
        Can you name even a single institution the government funds that even *considers* the possibility that DAGW may *not* be true?

  10. deadwood
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back Steve.

    While the choices are suspect, I can see where it could have been worse. However, now that you and others have provided Fiona with verification of her prescience, I eagerly await the whitewash and subsequent dis-assembly of their work. Ryann may prove correct, but somehow I doubt it.

  11. 1DandyTroll
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 9:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, these days, if the extremist propaganda outlet Nature supports the panel, the panel probably lacks any kind of integrity.

  12. Peter Wilson
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The makeup of this panel is entirely predictable, given that the personnel were selected on the recommendation of the Royal Society. The amazing thing is that the RS seems entirely unaware of the extent to which their involvement taints the process, given their highly one sided pronouncements on climate science and it’s opponents.

    Particularly damning is the statement by Prof Trevor Davies, “CRU’s scientific papers have been examined by scientists from other institutions through the peer review process before being accepted for publication by international journals. We have no reason to question the effectiveness of this process.”

    One wonders if he has actually read the emails – they seem to me to provide a great deal of reason to suspect exactly that. Surely, if there was no reason to question the peer review process, this whole inquiry is a waste of time – which seems clearly to be his implication.

    When you start out with public statements pre judging the matter at issue, how can you expect the resulting report to have any

  13. Peter Wilson
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 9:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    credibility – last word cut off sorry

  14. GTFrank
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    There must be a special interpretation of the word “independent” in Climatology. The hockey stick was verified “independently” by other members of the team. And now these “independent” inquiries, which also do not pass the test of “appearing” to be independent, even if they actually manage to reach a truly independent conclusion.

    It seems that they may not “trust” those not in the network to understand, interpret, or be sympathetic to their understanding of reality.

    Where is their legal team? where is their PR team? It is hard to believe they are as seemingly clueless as it appears they are.

    Such a surreal year this 2010 is becoming.

  15. Gixxerboy
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back Steve!

    The ridiculousness of Lord O’s appointment has not gone unnoticed by commentators on the UK’s news sites. Here’s the ‘most recommended’ from those on the Times’s article: “So a leading proponent of Anthropogenic Global Warming is to head an investigation into the veracity of the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming…Can’t wait to hear the results!”

    We all just have to take a deep breath and calmly explain to others that such things are precisely why we started to become sceptical about AGW. And how, the more we look, the more unsure things become.

    So glad you’re back on line Mr Mac.

  16. ZT
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Contrast the Indian media’s reaction to Pachauri with the UK media’s meek compliance with the party line.

    Remind me, which nation is on the rise and which on the decline?

  17. Hector M.
    Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 11:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This is like accepting several indicted accomplices as members of the jury in a criminal case.

  18. Jean S
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 2:37 AM | Permalink | Reply

    David Hand has an interesting paper:

    Hand D.J. (2007) Deception and dishonesty with data: fraud in science. Significance, v4, no.1, p22-25.

    I wonder what he thinks of “hiding the decline” with “Mike’s Nature Trick”.

    • David S
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

      He appears to be the most credible of the appointees, but he may be a lonely voice of reason.

    • wijjy
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Significance a magazine rather than a journal. It is the in house “glossy” of the Royal Statistical Society. I agree that Hand is credible, he is currently President of the Royal Statistical Society http://www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=2779

    • johnl
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 1:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Agreed. Hand is first rate.

  19. cedarhill
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Any time a group is formed toi make decision(s) the decisions will be based on politics. It’s just human. An ethics panel is, well, fraught with bias especially in the times we live where morality seems to be more individual than societal. Especially in the UK.

    In many ways, panels are similar to the English jury system but without the safeguard of vigorous questioning of potential members regarding their bias(es). The system accounts for any biases not caught during examination by simply expanding the number of members with each member having an equal vote. It’s about the best one can do to address decisions by groups.

    What we’re seeing with East Anglia is a process which presumes “scientific impartiality” replaces the jury examination. With the apparent failure of “scientific impartiality” what East Anglia should have done is to have convened a panel of advocates and let them go through the selection process to weed out as much bias as possible. What we’re left with is these organizations simply protecting themselves.

    It is still important to expose their selections. The voting public will certainly care little about details but will understand bias claims when presented accurately. While the focus on blogs like this are on the science, it’s the voting public that is causing the real politicians to rethink their positions. Dirty work, critisizing others, but that’s where climate science is today.

    • David S
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Juries are selected at random, at least in the UK they are. This is clearly not a random selection, and in the case of three of the members their bias is not something that needs to be teased out, it is a fundamental part of their scientific stance, and ought to have been known by UEA (I suspect they were) to be so at the time of appointment. There is no excuse for this at all.

  20. Mac
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This is all about saving the reputation of the University of East Anglia as well as CRU. So it should come as no surprise that the man with feet in the university’s executive and CRU camps, Trevor Davies, Vice-chancellor with responsibility for research, has blatantly cherry-picked the panels’ members to execute two whitewashes.

    This was done so that any future criticism of CRU can be referred back to this whitewash inquiries to highlight that CRU were exonerated by their peers. This is replicating standard civil service practiced by Whitehall mandarins.

    Lets be clear this is a grand deceit being practised by so called educated people. That is why it won’t work in the public domain.

    Ordinary people have become cynical of experts, mistrusting of what they are told they must believe, and don’t like to think they have been delibrately fooled by their so called betters.

    When these two inquiries come to report, people will simply say, “well they would say that, wouldn’t they!”, and will conclude that once again they have been lied to and tricked.

    Science is being hugely damaged in the public mind, it is a pity that scientists cannot see that.

  21. geronimo
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Whatever the goals of this review there was no need for anyone on the panel to come from the climate science community. The chair should have been a barrister endowed with the art of getting to the truth of any matter, and others from different branches of the science. The emails, show prima facie evidence of a systematic disrespect for the scientific process, it’s that that needs investigating and reporting on.

    While the UEA/CRU and the rest of the MSM in the UK may be pleased at the various “whitewashes” they’ve set in motion they should remember that time will pass and the heat (excuse pun) will leave this controversy. Once that has happened cooler heads will assess this and the hockeystick controversy and the truth will come out. What then for the place in scientific history of these activist scientists?

  22. Rog
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 5:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    When summoned to serve on a jury in the UK you have to declare an interest and be excused should you have any knowledge or relationship with the accused, or have a beneficial interest in the outcome of the trial.
    How many of us believe an application of such rules would render this “independent” jury panel unscathed and in its proposed full form?
    Surely the panel members know they stand to be tarnished by the whole affair?

  23. Roger Knights
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 5:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    They’ll win and win until they lose.

  24. Roger Knights
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 6:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    We need an antonym for “kangaroo court” and “hanging judge.”

    • Slowjoe
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Antonym for Kangaroo Court: Koala Court?

    • Daggers Edge
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

      How about a ‘hugging judge’?

  25. Don Keiller
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 6:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    This Government response tells you all you need to know:

    You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to “suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.”

    The Prime Minister’s Office has responded to that petition and you can view it here:

    http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22924

    We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.”
    Details of Petition:
    “The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is a “leading centre” for the investigation of “manmade global warming” and government policy relies on the integrity of these statistics. Several claims have been made: that data was “cherry picked” to make the 20th century temperature rise look exceptional in historical terms; emails suggest the unit has colluded in “tricks” to “hide the decline” in a high profile scientific journal, and this unit has colluded in active, secret and highly political campaigning through the website “realclimate”. The preparation of climate statistics require many judgements: stations move & sites become surrounded by urban sprawl (urban heating) & a judgement must be made of the size of the offset to apply to the global temperature record. The University accepts most emails are genuine so it appears the Unit has been acting in a highly partisan way incompatible with that of a neutral body preparing and interpreting government data. We call on the PM to suspend all further use of the climate research unit until all pertinent allegations have been investigated and any action (if any) has been taken.”
    • Read the petition
    • Petitions homepage
    Read the Government’s response
    The Government believes that all these allegations should be investigated transparently.
    An independent review is currently examining the scientific conduct of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and is due to report its findings later in the spring. More information on the review can be found at: http://www.cce-review.org/. The University of East Anglia also recently announced that there will be a separate review to examine the CRU’s key scientific publications. The findings of both these reviews will be made public.
    The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is also investigating the matter. On 1 March the Select Committee heard evidence from a wide range of contributors, including Professor Jones, who has temporarily stepped down from his post as Director of CRU.
    CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.
    Our confidence that the Earth is warming is taken from multiple sources of evidence and not only the HadCRUT temperature record, which CRU scientists contribute to. The same warming trend is seen in two independent analyses carried out in the United States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These analyses draw on the same pool of temperature data as HadCRUT, but use different methodologies to produce analyses of temperature change through time. Further evidence of this warming is found in data from instruments on satellites, and in trends of declining arctic sea ice and rising sea levels.
    Science is giving us an increasingly clear picture of the risks we face from climate change. With more research, we can better understand those risks, and how to manage them. That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.

    Prime Minister’s Office

    Petition information – http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/

  26. larrius
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    snip – policy

  27. Frank Davis
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    As far as I can see, all the members of the inquiry have got some – snip- prohibited word- credentials, except maybe David Hand.

  28. Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It gets worse, see The Register and Bishop Hill.

    Oxburgh is vice-chair of an environmental organisation called GLOBE International (see here and here).

    This position is not mentioned on the House of Lords list of members interests.

    The President and Chairman of the Board GLOBE is Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP. UK readers will be ROFLing, but for the benefit of overseas readers, Byers was thrown out of the Labour Party on Monday after being caught on film boasting of his ability to influence government policy in return for cash.

    • Martin Audley
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

      So the CRU “independent” inquiry chairman is GLOBE’s Vice Chairman. And GLOBE’s purpose is to organise and influence international politicians to make laws in response to climate science. This is an organisation who’s entire raison d’etre disappears if recent global temperature changes are cannot be demonstrated to be of human/CO2 origin.

      GLOBE’s main website does not fully work on my browser but Google finds this page http://copenhagen.globeinternational.org/globe_legislators_forum/participants.aspx, and also the amazing statement:

      “I congratulate GLOBE on the extraordinary work you have done over the past few years to build GLOBE into one of the most influential forums in the international debate.

      Former UK Prime Minister Rt Hon Tony Blair”

      So although few of us had probably heard of this organisation before, this is not an organisation without influence.

      As an earlier commentator pointed out, the President of GLOBE (UK) is Stephen Byers MP, a man willing to lie and boast of his ability to influence government policy for cash. I can find no statement on the GLOBE website that Stephen Byers has been asked to step down from his position.

      So this is the level of independence that the CRU inquiry is demonstrating. Is it truly impossible to find, from all the respected scientists in the world, someone who does not have direct vested interests?

  29. baahumbug
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:38 AM | Permalink | Reply

    The thing that upsets me is that these wackers think we are stupid, that we (Steve especially) won’t see through this. They continually treat us like mugs and we continually shoot them down.

    The alarmists are continuing to paint themselves into a corner. Inevitably, the MSM, being cannibalistic in nature, will savage these fools when the fools start showing signs of the injuries inflicted upon them by the likes of Mcintyre Watts Booker et al

    Welcome back Steve

    • Daggers Edge
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

      They don’t care that you will shoot them down. They aren’t trying to convert their opponents. They aren’t even really trying to convert those who are wavering, although they won’t be unhappy if they do. They are simply trying to give the *appearance* of being fair.

      The whole point of this exercise is to have an inquiry. During the inquiry, they can say that they are waiting for the results of the inquiry and it ‘wouldn’t be fair to do otherwise’.

      Having had it, they will simply say to anyone who opposes them that ‘they, in the name of fairness’ held an inquiry and have looked into that matter and that ‘it isn’t fair to keep going over old matters.’

      This whole matter should be decided on the scientific facts (or lack thereof in the case of manmade global warming). But I’m afraid that the science has become a sideshow. The matter will be based on politics: who has the power and who does not.

  30. dearieme
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “They should resign and let the balance of the panel proceed without them.” No, that would leave too much sway with Huppert, the only one of them I’ve met. Not impressed.

  31. Philhippos
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Reported that Lord Oxborough undeclared as on the Board of GLOBE. Globe website shows as Chairman the totally discredited MP Stephen ‘I am a Cab for hire’ Byers.
    Can this lot get any sleazier?

  32. ditmar
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Welcome back! I thought you had gone the way of bender! Whatever became of him?

  33. thefordprefect
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Bishops hill: The Royal Society panel that is going to examine the scientific aspects of the Climategate affair has been announced.

    It is a SCIENTIFIC inquiry. This means that the panel must have a background in the subject of the inquiry. There is no point including historians, artists, engineers, accountants etc. There is little point in including more than a token physicist, chemist, geologist, mathematician.
    The panel needs to be climatologists, perhaps a statician, perhaps a research scientis who understands the scientific method. There is little point in including people like Plimer (discredited by his own book).

    Surely a gaggle of climatologists must include those with AGW and non-AGW views?
    I find it sad that you consider ALL scientists to be corrupt and unable to scientifically (i.e. sceptically) judge the worth of other research. Don’t the stolen emails show disagreements within the ranks?

    • gimply
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

      “Stolen” emails? “All” scientists?
      Both Anglia and Prefect are somewhat obsolete, but a few collectors may have some homogenized parts around.

    • TAG
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Judges rule on scientific issues as a routine part of their duties. Judges also know how to conduct inquiries which is a task for which scientists have no training and little aptitude. SMc has often noted teh NAS panel which jsut “winged it” in thieir inquiry.

      Judges can ask for scientific testimony to inform them of the issues. SMc mentioned the Walkerton inquiry in Canada. The judge in that inquiry heard from experts on the geology of the area, water quality issues etc in order to determine why the residents of the Walkerton area were exposed to E coli in their water with large scale illness and mulitple deaths resulting.

    • Tolz
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

      “The panel needs to be climatologists, perhaps a statician{sic}….”

      I think the “perhaps” attitude towards statistics is one of the root causes of the problem. I think the panel more than “perhaps” needs someone quite competent with statistics or the science isn’t very scientific, nor is the inquiry.

    • Derek H
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

      It is a SCIENTIFIC inquiry. This means that the panel must have a background in the subject of the inquiry. … There is little point in including more than a token physicist, chemist, geologist, mathematician.

      Are you pulling our legs? As a scientific inquiry, an independent applied physicist, applied mathematician, statistician, etc. would be far more likely to ensure a scientifically sound but objective inquiry than a climatologist, especially ones with such tainted backgrounds. In fact, a NON-climatologist physicist is more likely to see what has been done right or wrong and if wrong point out if it was likely to be honest error (e.g., groupthink, tunnel vision, etc.) or intentional data manipulation.

      Jones’ claims about “standard practices” within climate “science” should be sufficient to demonstrate why you want scientists from outside the “climate community” to review this malarkey.

  34. dearieme
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “It is a SCIENTIFIC inquiry. This means that the panel must have a background in the subject of the inquiry. There is no point including … engineers…. There is little point in including more than a token … mathematician.”
    Quite wrong. The science involved in Climate Science means that, for example, a well-chosen Chemical Engineer or Combustion Engineer might be a good pick. A well-chosen statistician (or two) seems to me to be essential.

    • Allen Ford
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

      … plus a metrologist to conduct a full audit of possible instrumental and environmental biases in the basic data, a competent computer programmer to evaluate the quality of the programs used to compile the data into meaningful form, and an expert in data management and archiving. An ethicist would not go astray, either.

  35. Fred
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Usually Teams that feel they need to play with a stacked line-up fear losing the game if played on the level.

    Doesn’t say much for their confidence.

    That they think they can do something so blatant and unbalanced brings into question their competence as well.

    That they think they can do something so blatant and unbalanced and believe they can get away with it, brings into question their integrity.

  36. Mac
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve you also paid the expenses of the Rt. Hon Elliot Morley MP, another member of GLOBE International, who has been charged by the UK authorities of theft by false accounting.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/16/usnews.greenpolitics

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8561359.stm

    I’m sure you shirt will be covered in coffee stains now.

    …… and what about the Rt. Hon, Stephen Byers, UK president of Globe International, who is being investigated for working for companies to secure secret deals with government ministers – yep, you paid for his expenses as well.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8579348.stm

    You’ll be needing a new shirt now.

  37. PaulH
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Rather off-topic, but regarding the Gouzenko spy ring mentioned above. I recently read Lowell Green’s historical novel “Hoodwinked: The Spy Who Didn’t Die” that centres on the mysterious Igor Gouzenko. A good story and a fun read.

    Paul

  38. geo
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If I were one of the lesser involved figures in the climategate emails, I’d be annoyed at the composition of the committee. An obviously biased committee cannot exonerate anyone in the circles that really matter.

    That’s why committee composition in instances where it is hoped the opinion of the committee will actually carry some weight are always scrupulously and carefully constructed.

  39. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 1:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I would strongly suspect that the outcome of this inquiry is a foregone conclusion and more carried out to stem the adverse public relations than to truly investigate and inquire.

    If that is indeed the case, what better use could be made of what might otherwise be considered a charade than to judge those supposedly doing the inquiring. For example, while Kerry Emanuel appears somewhat circumspect about his science, his advocacy statements would to me appear to be definitely of another bent.

  40. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Ryan and others, take a look at our letter to the US National Academy of Sciences regarding the NAS Panel. In that letter, we reviewed applicable NAS policies on bias, conflict of interest and panel composition as against the nominees to that panel. The comments in this letter are as fresh today as they were in Feb 2006.

    The issues for Emanuel and others are not personal in the sense of whether Emanuel is or isn’t a pleasant person – I corresponded quite pleasantly with Emanuel in early 2007. The question is whether Emanuel meets standards set out in relevant policies for panel composition. While NAS policies would not be mandated for the CRU panel, there’s no reason why lower policies should be adopted. If someone can locate comparable UK policies, we can use them; but otherwise, I suggest that his appointment be measured against NAS policies for panel composition so that the matter can be discussed in relatively objective terms.

  41. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    What is the “product” for this panel? Is it just a final report or will there be something on the order of a “Proceedings of the …. Panel”? In any case, will the proceedings be subject to some sort of FOIA request if not posted somewhere when the panel finishes?

  42. Craig Loehle
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

    An interesting parallel can be drawn with superhero comics. In many cases, the superhero is outmanned but wins in the end because the bad guy is arrogant. He brags about his plan, ignores warning signs of a flaw he has, over-reaches, deems his opponents insignificant, etc. Comics as philosophy? Maybe not but perhaps the writiers were good observers of human nature. Perhaps it does not occur to them that there is anyone out there who is NOT fully vested in the AGW story, except the deranged like those who visit CA, and you can’t invite crazy people to be on a panel. Perhaps running a green lobbying firm or owning windmills or writing op-ed pieces defending CRU just shows how virtuous and clever you are. sarc/off for those who don’t know me!

  43. AQ42
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Nemo judex in causa sua (No man shall be a judge in his own cause) as we lawyers say . .

    • Craig Loehle
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Unless you get to pick your own jury.

  44. geo
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Emmanuel being a Mann co-author doesn’t bother me in the context of an investigation of CRUs behavior. Mann isn’t being investigated in this investigation –CRU is. I can imagine the final report never mentioning Mann by name at all.

    Emmanuel having clearly “pre-judged” what climategate is all about (MIT debate), however, seems to me to clearly be disqualifying.

    • geo
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 4:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Sorry, “Emanuel”.

    • SimonH
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Since it’s the performance and integrity of CRU’s work that is being examined, I’m not sure that the balance of the enquiry’s remit in fact could possibly exclude Mann. Moreover so small is the group of those influential in the science of climatology that it would be impossible to separate Mann from the body of work performed by the CRU. Mann’s interactions with the CRU, and his proximity of association with the CRU, will undoubtedly come under close scrutiny in the evolution of any examination of CRU’s work. Assuming, of course, that the enquiry in question performed even a mere fraction of its duties.

  45. Dave McK
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    snip – policy

  46. T G Watkins
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 5:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Peter Dunford – Very well said. I signed the “petition” to No. 10 and we received the expected response. This is driven by political and scientific ignorance and hubris.
    No surprise in the composition of the ‘panel’. Skins like a rhinoceros. Who do we vote for?
    Keep up the pressure Steve, you have many, many supporters.

  47. Punksta
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This is a SCIENTIFIC enquiry, so we need scientists to conduct it.

    But it’s an enquiry about the scientific *process*, rather than about the actual science in question. And I don’t think you need much more than common sense to know what that involves – openness, honesty, etc.

  48. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    This is supposed to be an investigation. When you stack a panel with people who seem by past experience or past statements to have pre-judged the outcome, then there is the appearance of impropriety. When two of the panel members have co-authored papers with people who have similar thinking patterns to the people at UEA who they are supposed to be investigating then the entire process seems to me to be set up from the start to exonerate rather than investigate UEA.

  49. Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I am surprised by all the righteous indignation. Some of you are sophisticated enough to know that investigations are a political activity after the event. Nobody wants to be embarrassed by the outcome so the panel is selected accordingly.

    But regardless of the outcome, those investigated and the public know that without much grounds no investigation would take place.

    I am sure you would be mightily uncomfortable if you were the subject of an investigation even if you did nothing wrong.

    • Greg F
      Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I am sure you would be mightily uncomfortable if you were the subject of an investigation even if you did nothing wrong.

      Not so much if my buddies are the ones doing the investigating.

  50. mpaul
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Here’s a nice little brochure from 2006 in which Oxburgh states:

    ‘We are as certain as we can be that by
    burning fossil fuels we are turning a benign natural
    phenomenon – the greenhouse effect that makes
    the earth warm enough for us to inhabit – in to a
    seriously dangerous one by trapping so much heat
    that sea level rises and the world climate becomes
    wild and unpredictable.’

    You’ll find this quote on page 14, right next to the picture of Oxburgh and … wait, who’s that? Why its Trevor Davies. Phil must have been away when the photo shoot happened.

    http://www.ncl.ac.uk/alumni/arches/archive/documents/Arches7.pdf

  51. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 7:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just listened to Kerry Emanuel’s opening statement on MITWorld. It is quite revealing of his feelings about AGW, his opponents, which he calls deniers and attibutes their actions to being part of a machine. In my opinion, Kerry Emanuel has already made up his mind that the emails were hacked and the show scientists doing what they should do.

    Lindzen had his notes, quite literally, on the back of an envelope. I have done this I’ve done this quite a few times myself.

  52. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The problem of probity is not new. In 1987 our Company was obliged to spend money on granted mineral leases and we had found promising signs of a uranium deposit. The Fedral Governement then proposed to surround the area with a World Hertiage listing under the United Nations treaty, which would make working of the leases impossible. There was a clear impasse, so we took the relevant Federal Ministers to court.

    The case, part way through the process, is summarised at http://www.law.mq.edu.au/Units/law404/Peko%20FCA%201987%20case.htm

    The leading opinion in the Federal Court of Australia was written by Judge Murray Wilcox. http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/aboutct/wilcox.html This case had some groundbreaking elements – “The question whether the Courts will review a decision made not under a statute but by virtue of the prerogative has not so far been decided in this country.”

    Murray Rutledge Wilcox had been President Australian Conservation Foundation from 1979 to 1984. The policies of the ACF included opposition to uranium mining.

    Last month Murray surfaced again, with a newspaper reporting “Former Federal Court judge Murray Wilcox has described the proposal to develop a massive gas processing hub on Western Australia’s Dampier Peninsula as ‘Australia’s next great environmental controversy’. ”

    Looks like the spots on the leopard were there before and after our little case. One would expect that Murray, with the intelligence to become a Judge, to know that there was a conflict of his interest in our case.

    What can be done? The mere citizen can do little more than publicise, publicise, publicise, as this thread does for the University of East Anglia. Shame can penetrate some thick skins.

  53. justbeau
    Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 9:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Emanuel now seems to be trotted out for the public, because Gore, Captain Ahab Hansen, Randy the Love Guru, John Holdren, Jerry North, Ralph Cicerone, and so many others have lost any semblence of credibility or never had any to begin with.
    In National Academy of Sciences circles, AGW proponents must hope Emanuel carries some weight as a champion for their cause. But Emanuel’s piece in the Boston Globe a month or two back was lame thinking, worthy of Madison Avenue. Emanuel seemed to argue something must be done, in case there is any chance of Global Warming and he asserts there is clear evidence of it, when there is in fact no such clear evidence. To claim there is a conspiracy of skeptics reveals a politician like Mann, not a genuine scientist.
    Of course, Steve, Emanuel should not be white-washing East Anglia. You are utterly correct on this poing. He is not independent-minded.
    In due course, Emanuel’s reputation, regardless of what it has been based upon, will suffer, because he is backing a loser. Charging over to East Anglia, whitewash brush in hand, is amusing. MIT must be pursuing massive largesse from Steve Chu, so Emanuel is out there campaigning for rationales to keep the money rolling into MIT’s coffers.

  54. Posted Mar 24, 2010 at 10:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    ROFLMAO!

    They are exposing their lack of rationality by continuing to vividly show that they lack a sound ethical center.

    In the internet age where such whitewashing is so gosh darn easy to spot,only proves that they are irrational people daring to bull their way to a predetermined decision.

    Surely they should understand that their unethical and stupid behavior will catch up with them in the future.

    The whole think reeks of political overtones.

    • 3Ms
      Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

      It would be interesting to see a psychological profile of such behaviour. To me their behaviour is very immature; the need to group themselves together, so that the “message” appears (in their eyes) to have greater validity, does nothing more than expose them as looking very concerned that their “cover up” is at risk of being exposed.

  55. Dany
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 3:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    To whitewash or not to whitewash, that’s the question as for any enquiry ; looks like any enquiry by an university is unable to be really independent : see U of NY regarding chinese temperature data, or curent Penn State enquiry , but not only in a university background : see the 9/11 commission in the US, or similar in the UK…

    For the time, enquiries by parliament have a reasonably decent track record regarding climate, see US senate in 2006, house of lords, current review by house of commons

    Anyway, I’m still struggling finding any proper translation in French for whitewashing…

  56. MIke
    Posted Mar 25, 2010 at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “This volume was proceedings of a NATO workshop – edited by.. Phil Jones.”

    That Lisa Graumlich has a paper in a proceedings volume edited by Jones does not imply a bias. I have had papers in volumes whose editors I have never met. I recently chaired a conference session. I had never met many of the people I invited to speak.

    • Jimchip
      Posted Mar 26, 2010 at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: MIke (Mar 25 20:25),

      My take on it isn’t that the volume was edited by Jones but rather the Co-authorship with Hughes along with being on the same email cc’d list with “the community”, including “The Team”. Obviously a Hughes research partner…”both are presently at the same institute of the University of Arizona”. It’s not about imputing bias…There simply seems to be a sad ignorance on ‘these enquiries’ part wrt the meaning of “independence”.

      Edited by Jones is part of it all, too.

      • MIke
        Posted Mar 26, 2010 at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

        snip – forbidden language

        • Jimchip
          Posted Mar 26, 2010 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

          Re: MIke (Mar 26 16:50),

          Any inquiry shouldn’t be limited to CRU, only. One thing the emails show is that the issue is not a single-institution issue. Not ‘climate-science’ in general, either. It turns out that the Mann/Emmanuel paper referenced above is more important for me wrt to the “tainted” issue than the fact that Emmanuel may have made some public statements. For example,

          “We thank G. Schmidt, S. Rahmstorf, C. Folland,
          J. Knight, B. Santer, and K. Trenberth for
          comments on an early version of this manuscript,
          and we thank an anonymous reviewer
          for helpful comments on the manuscript. We
          thank G. Schmidt and L. Nazarenko for GISS
          (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) ModelE
          tropospheric aerosol SST cooling estimates
          and J. Knight for the U.K. Met Office SST data”

          As for Hughes, Mann/Bradley/Hughes are (or were) research partners (“The Team”) and can’t be considered to be independent. “Tainted” to me means a false claim of “independence” on the enquiry’s part.

  57. Ken Mourin
    Posted Apr 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Typical establishment procedure! First define the remit, next pick the chairman, then pack the ‘jury’. The Royal Society (that hot spot of AGW) were said to be asked to nominate members, probably with a quiet word from the government. Getting Acton to take responsibility shifts the blame three places left.

    But could there be a more obvious snook cocked at the people? A middle finger gesture, if you don’t know what a snook is in this context. Oxburgh is chairman of a multi-billion company trading “carbon”. If he found the science to be faulty, and carbon blameless (as he should), what could he do? Sell up? Cause a collapse in the market? Shoot himself? No, the answer is not in doubt; he is put in there to make sure that the ‘science’ is sound.

  58. andrew99
    Posted Apr 11, 2010 at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,

    I am a history graduate and have been in touch with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia in e-mail version only and in the spirit of truth.

    I am aware his forbear was the great Sir Edward Acton.

    I am considering testing him on this (although I have not reseached Sir Edward)-
    “Would your forbear have been complicit in this?” (More polite of course).

    I am concerned that truth is going out of the window in all this and perhaps if the Vice – Chancellor could be convinced of our case something might result?

    Andrew

  59. drewski
    Posted Apr 14, 2010 at 6:58 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I would like a panel that has not made a comment — pro or con — on climate change yet is highly respected within the field of climate change — that would be the only way to satisfy the bloggers here. Unfortunately no such animal exists. A recent study of scientists who actually conduct studies and produce reports within climate science shows that 97 out of 100 believe that man is contributing to a warmer climate.
    It appears that if we want QUALIFIED scientists to carry out an inquiry into climate science impropriety we are stuck with a panel made up of people who believe in man-made global warming.

11 Trackbacks

  1. [...] McIntyre ClimateAudit.org March 23, [...]

  2. By Climategate, what is going on? - EcoWho on Mar 24, 2010 at 5:32 PM

    [...] Another Tainted InquiryIs CO2 the cause – presentations by Prof Bob Carter Well worth watching, covers the whole area. [...]

  3. By Niche Modeling » Three good posts on Mar 25, 2010 at 6:58 AM

    [...] global warming science have not been picked up by other observers. While real scientists find Climategate distasteful, it does not necessarily challenge the pillars of AGW logic. These latest [...]

  4. By Top Posts — WordPress.com on Mar 26, 2010 at 7:09 PM

    [...] Another Tainted Inquiry Back online from a short hiatus in blogging (see comment below.) It’s pretty discouraging that yet another [...] [...]

  5. By Climate Change Politics - Page 30 on Mar 27, 2010 at 11:55 PM

    [...] lists Oxburgh as one of 23 key legislators. yes, another stinkily tainted enquiry is going on http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/23/another-tainted-inquiry/#comment-226028 Little expense is spared: in one year alone, one peer – Lord Michael Jay of Ewelme – enjoyed [...]

  6. By Oxburgh and Davies « Climate Audit on Apr 13, 2010 at 7:37 PM

    [...] science community. Now the emboldened Trevor Davies isn’t even bothering. Alert readers at CA here and at Bishop Hill’s spotted the following 2006 picture of Oxburgh (3rd from right) with [...]

  7. [...] on CRU science, perhaps tomorrow. The panel was first announced on March 22, 2010 – see here. No terms of reference were disclosed then, nor, to my knowledge, have they been disclosed [...]

  8. By The Oxburgh Report « The Policy Lass on Apr 14, 2010 at 8:09 AM

    [...] report on CRU science, perhaps tomorrow. The panel was first announced on March 22, 2010 – see here. No terms of reference were disclosed then, nor, to my knowledge, have they been disclosed [...]

  9. [...] a post at Climate Audit on the subject of the inquiries completed to date, McIntyre said “I resent the idea that I automatically think that any and all inquiries are [...]

  10. [...] Aussi, on y trouve Lisa Graumlich, coauteure avec Malcolm Hughes sur la dendroclimatologie, en lien avec une présentation à l’OTAN par… Phil Jones! Ah, le monde est petit :-) Source. [...]

  11. By Anonymous on Aug 23, 2011 at 9:26 PM

    [...] Goings on at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – WSJ.com Steve Mcintyre: Another Tainted Inquiry Climate Audit These are the biggest skeptics in the field, even mentioned in the leaked e-mails. Do you find [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,116 other followers

%d bloggers like this: