Comments on: Lord Oxburgh of Globe International to Report

By: dougie

dougie — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:13:21 +0000

hope to God your right eddy.
but 4yrs on and this is still an issue, makes me wonder!!

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:48:05 +0000

Re: jthomas (Apr 14 12:17), Would you be so kind as to make clear who you're talking to? You are responding to justbeau but sound like you're talking to a larger group. I don't think I'd disagree with justbeau in the firstplace since if this were a jury trial, the first thing you'd be asked is if you had any substantial dealings with the people on trial. Now Jones (CRU) and Mann clearly had substantial dealings with each other. And if Kerry Emanuel then has co-authored a paper with Michael Mann, I'd think it would make his unsuitable to be on a jury looking at potential wrongdoing by Jones. snip

By: jthomas

jthomas — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:17:16 +0000

Wow, you are one paranoid conspiracist. No matter, you’re just further marginalizing yourselves.
snip – prohibited language

By: eddy

eddy — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:40:22 +0000

Yep, I’ve seen that. Maybe the reiteration will have some effect, now. Not saying that it will, but I think that if things get repeated often enough they tend to become embedded in the consciousness even of slower-moving entities, such as research funding bodies.

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:22:06 +0000

Yep, and soon to be noted at RC and affiliates.

By: PaulM

PaulM — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:50:54 +0000

Re: eddy (Apr 14 07:12), eddy, are you familiar with the Wegman report? This was published in 2006. Here is one of their findings:

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.

Groundhog day?

By: eddy

eddy — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:12:11 +0000

“2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that
depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a
much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of
temperature specialists.”

For me, this is the true & valuable core to the report – not having any emotional or idealogical horse in this race, and not really caring whether particular individuals are lauded or alternatively, tarred, feathered & beaten through the streets with pigs’ bladders.

I’d just like to see good science. Perhaps they will adopt this recoemmndation, and the science at CRU & elsewhere will improve.

By: Stew NZ

Stew NZ — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:01:09 +0000

If as the report says
” CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the
discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of the temperature during the late 20 th century”
why are the tree based proxys used at all?

By: Beth Cooper

Beth Cooper — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:45:01 +0000

How ironic that a panel of gatekeepers is set up to review the openness of the climate science peer review and FOI processes.

By: R.S.Brown

R.S.Brown — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:38:20 +0000

Although the BBC headline shouts “no malpractice” and in the subheader claims the
report was from an “independent” investigative body, the actual news report seems
VERY soft on exculpatory findings:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8618024.stm