Oxburgh versus Emanuel

In response to my inquiry asking for a copy of any document setting out the terms of reference of the inquiry, Lord Oxburgh stated:

I am afraid that I am not able to be very helpful as none of the documents about which you inquire exists.

And later:

The only written record, apart from any notes that individuals may have kept privately but of which I am unaware, is our final report that was agreed unanimously. Similarly the terms of reference were given to me verbally and are encapsulated in the introductory paragraphs of our report.

In response to a previous inquiry, Kerry Emanuel, a member of the Oxburgh panel, stated:

As for the written documentation, such as our charge, we were at one point asked not to circulate those, and while that restriction may no longer be in force, I feel a little reluctant to pass those along without checking first. The cleanest way for you to get that material is to ask Ron Oxburgh for it.


72 Comments

  1. Johan i Kanada
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

    I take it that both were part of the same team (generating the report)?

    If so, one of the two is a liar!

    What do they have to say about each others (contradictory) statements?

    Looking forward to the infighting!

    • Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 12:32 AM | Permalink

      Well, strictly speaking, the two testimonies don’t contradict one another. They could have been asked not to circulate the documents even if the documents didn’t exist. :-)

      In the same way, people on this planet are asked not to make fun out of the proofs of global warming, even though no such proofs exist.

      More seriously, despite the detailed contradiction between them, don’t expect any fights. They agree about the most important thing that matters here: when you’re asked any inconvenient questions, choose the fog and obfuscation that avoids the real issue (e.g. the actual task for the commission) as your answer.

      It is not hard to guess what the actual task for the commission was and why no member wants to tell us explicitly.

      Whether it’s written somewhere on the paper is probably unimportant, indeed. The two Gentlemen realize that the existence of the paper is really irrelevant relatively to the actual thing they don’t want to tell us, so the contradiction about the existence of the document is a tiny detail for them.

      • Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 2:45 AM | Permalink

        In the same way, people on this planet are asked not to make fun out of the proofs of global warming, even though no such proofs exist.

        But Lubos, we know such proofs exist, because the authorities tell us so. That’s why it’s so damaging for Steve to mock authorities of any kind, in this case by quoting precisely what two of them on the same panel have said.

        Of course they can’t show us the proofs, when they get treated this way. No wonder Jerry North asked never to be mentioned on this blog again.

        The problem with Steve is that he keeps insisting that words have meanings and meanings have consequences.

        And so they do.

      • artwest
        Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

        Lubos, but Emanuel says
        “As for the written documentation, (..)we were at one point asked not to circulate those, and while that restriction may no longer be in force, I feel a little reluctant to pass those along without checking first.
        The cleanest way for you to get that material is to ask Ron Oxburgh for it. ”

        Which he would only say if paperwork existed. Otherwise he would have said something like “we were at one point asked not to circulate those, but in the event, there wasn’t any paperwork anyway”

        Why would he mention his reluctance to now pass on paperwork if none existed?

        Why would he suggest asking Oxburgh for it if none existed?

        There may be reasons for him obfuscating but the meaning of his words are clear – he has paperwork himself which he could pass along if he wanted to but his reason/excuse for not doing so is his previous agreement not to.

        • Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 8:00 AM | Permalink

          Dear artwest, there are 2 constraints that they’re trying to simultaneously preserve:

          1) such an investigation should have these documents, otherwise it’s a joke
          2) the content of these documents or their verbal counterparts shouldn’t be revealed because it would become obvious that the investigation was a joke, anyway

          These are subtle conditions because they apparently contradict each other. Clearly, all the participants must know about the defining tasks of the commission, whether it’s in an e-mail or PDF or a few sentences transmitted verbally.

          How can they preserve both constraints? Well, I think that the two Gentlemen are simply offering two candidates for the best solutions to this problem.

          Emanuel’s may actually be the cleverer one. I would agree that one wouldn’t say “I feel a little reluctant to pass them along” if they didn’t exist and if he honestly wanted to convey some useful information. On the other hand, that’s probably not the case, and if the documents don’t exist, Emanuel is not strictly lying here, which is another advantage.

          Even if the documents don’t exist, he may feel reluctant to pass them along. I would also be reluctant to pass the UFO spaceships or something else that doesn’t exist along. Aren’t you reluctant to eat aliens’ hamburgers?

          Besides these semi-joking considerations, my point is that you shouldn’t try to decide about the answers just by trying to read something that is written implicitly, in between the lines, because the information in between the lines may be fabricated, too.

          The written documents may still be non-existent despite Emanuel’s convincing fog about the secret rules how these non-existent documents should be manipulated with. Of course, the more general and universal issue for the importance and honesty of the investigation is not whether some documents exist and are properly stamped but what were actually the tasks that the members were asked to solve, on paper or verbally.

          Best wishes
          Lubos

        • artwest
          Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

          Lubos: I don’t doubt that all sorts of smoke and mirrors might be used by CAGW believers but in this case I don’t see how one member of the panel deliberately giving the undeniable impression that paperwork exists and the head of the inquiry stating the direct opposite helps them.

          To the objective onlooker one of them has to be wrong. That isn’t the effect which they want surely? The clever obfuscater wants the uninitiated to think that they are being straightforward even if the initiated suspect or know otherwise.

        • Posted Jun 9, 2010 at 5:55 AM | Permalink

          Perhaps Oxburgh destroyed his copy and Emanuel is loath to give his out; thus, he appealed to higher authority.

          Maybe Emanuel is feeling guilty (or shameful for being part of the charade) and is dropping a hint that he can produce a copy if properly motivated, but at the same time is performing CYA to ensure that he is not compromised in his current crowd.

        • John Archer
          Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

          Dear Luboš,

          You remind me of the style used to determine the intersection of an empty family of sets.

          I love the way you think. :)

  2. Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 12:29 AM | Permalink

    Climategate par deux?????

  3. Doug in Seattle
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 12:29 AM | Permalink

    Rather sad that Oxburgh feels it necessary to dissemble about such a thing. Even worse that he does it so badly.

  4. TA
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 12:32 AM | Permalink

    This is shaping up into quite a scandal! One wonders what it will take for the mainstream media to realize that the major problem with climate science is not “big oil”. It’s “big climate”.

  5. ZT
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 1:10 AM | Permalink

    Lord Ronnie is a class act.

  6. DeNihilist
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 1:27 AM | Permalink

    Steve, send this post to Delingpole. The way the Brits are acting lately, I am sure they would like to know about this sad state of affair.

    • Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 2:47 AM | Permalink

      Yes, the Delingpole treatment may not be right for every nuance but for this it’s required.

      • Phillip Bratby
        Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

        Or to Christopher Booker. He would give it good coverage.

  7. MichaelM
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 5:03 AM | Permalink

    This ridiculous circumstance reminds me of one of the more infamous quotes from the CAGW crowd, referring to WUWT writers as ‘breathtakingly ignorant’ (still makes me chuckle, how over the top that is).

    Surely this blatant contradiction is ‘breathtaking’ as well? Somebody help me throw an adjective on the end of this –

    “breathtakingly …..”

    • Phillip Bratby
      Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

      Breathtakingly breathtaking!

  8. Martin A
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 5:04 AM | Permalink

    As someone on another blog (Bishop Hill, I think) pointed out, in British English “verbally” means simply “in words” – either spoken or written – which raises a question.

    The poorly-educated sometimes misuse the word “verbally” when they mean “orally” ie in spoken words.

    Was Oxburgh intentionally using the word “verbally” to make you think he meant that he was given his instructions by word of mouth but leaving open the possibility of denying that that was what he meant?

    Or was he displaying a deficiency in his education and was misusing the word, believing it really does mean “orally”?

    • Craig Loehle
      Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 7:07 AM | Permalink

      I think they meant “verbally” as in using verbs…like whitewash, and cover up, and obfuscate. That must be it. No need for written terms of reference, since verbs are such simple things.

    • AndrewSouthLondon
      Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

      “In British English “verbally” means simply “in words” – either spoken or written…”

      Not in the British English I have spoken for many decades . Verbally refers to words spoken and not written down, as disinct from “in writing”, which is the opposite of verbally.

      Example: “Given a verbal warning” ie not a formal written admonishment on the record. Merely told off.

      Steve - yup. No more attempts to split this particular hair, please.

  9. bjedwards
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 7:19 AM | Permalink

    Really, this is getting silly.

    You may as well start looking under the mattress.

  10. Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 7:47 AM | Permalink

    Oxburgh is quite explicit as to the charge for his committee in the report itself. The Royal Society selected just 11 papers(no doubt carefully and on the advice of the CRU itself) and asked the committe to investigate their scientific integrity.This they did by reading
    the selected papers and making a few visits to CRU to talk with the authors.
    It was a very limited charge which the committe duly carried out.
    At that time the Royal Society was clearly acting as a propagandist for the AGW paradigm – it now looks like that cheerleading role may be about to change.

    • ZT
      Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

      http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/16/actons-eleven-the-response.html

      “So, ladies and gentlemen. I think we can now say with considerable certainty that Lord Oxburgh’s declaration that he took the advice of the Royal Society as to which papers to examine is not true.”

      • Edwin
        Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

        If we take “any and all papers” as a set, then the 11 papers are a sub-set and therefore it was a true statement that the RS did select the papers for Oxburgh :-)
        Oxburgh chose his word carefully, though suggestive, he didn’t quite said that RS asked the inquiry to look explicitely at only those 11 papers. Technically they all spoke the truth.
        But how the 11 papers was chosen and why only 11 is anyone’s guess.
        Ghosh! This is like reading Shallock Holmes.

        • ZT
          Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

          ‘Selected’ indicates a subset. “were selected on the advice of the Royal Society” indicates that the RS advised on creating this subset. The only problem is that the Royal Society deny providing such advice.

          Doesn’t look like a case of everyone is telling the truth to me.

          Oxburgh versus Emanuel, Oxburgh versus Royal Society, Oxburgh versus ?, ….

  11. Ed Caryl
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    I’ve given up murder mysteries. This is more fun.

  12. Fred
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    So this appears to be a cover-up attempt of a cover-up attempt.

    They must really have some dirt to hide.

  13. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    I have some information on the Royal Society’s “selection” process that I haven’t reported yet for reasons that will become clear in the near future. There’s another shoe to drop.

    • TA
      Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

      Then I for one am eagerly awaiting the forthcoming shoe!

  14. Matthu
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    Steve – your tireless efforts to pin people down are widely appreciated. I always look forward to your updates.

  15. TerryMN
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    Seems they’ve reached a tipping point. ;)

  16. Solomon Green
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 3:04 PM | Permalink

    Having given invited evidence in numerous inquiries and having assisted in others as an expert I find it incredible that any inquiry could be established without written terms of reference.

    Oxburgh must be the first person to have accepted an appointment to chair an inquiry without writtenterms of reference and his colleagues must be inexpereienced in accepting an appointment to a board of inwuiry which had no terms of reference in writing.

    • TerryMN
      Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

      As for the written documentation, such as our charge, we were at one point asked not to circulate those

      Unless Emmanual is making things up, ie “I have written documentation that never existed” I find it even more incredible that Mr. Oxburgh is being completely, ummm… forthcoming with his answer. He seems to have become tangled in a web of sorts…

    • ZT
      Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

      Of course – reality seems quite malleable for this inquiry – Emanuel, as opposed to Lord Ronnie, says that they had a documented ‘charge’.

      Lord Ronnie, does your coat of arms bear the image of the three wise monkeys?

  17. bubbagyro
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

    In Florida, we have things called no-see-ums. Little bugs that you only realize they have bit you by the red mark that appears later.

    Looks like the Brits are leaving many red marks on their own butts.

    BTW, if your phone doesn’t ring, Steve, it’s Oxburgh not calling.

    • Britannic no-see-um
      Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

      Too true. Small world.

  18. charles the moderator
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    Phil Jones should have used the:

    “The raw data was only verbal”

    defense.

  19. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    Emanuel emailed me to say that he mis-spoke when he referred to including their terms of reference within the written documentation that he received (“written documentation, such as our charge”) and apologized if “my previous correspondence with you caused any confusion.”

    He now says that the “only real document we had in advance of the meeting was a list of suggested references, which I attach, and a 1-page document entitled “SUBMISSION BY THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT TO THE INDEPENDENT CLIMATE CHANGE E-MAIL REVIEW, 1 MARCH 2010″. This was evidently a document submitted by CRU not to us but to the other review that was conducted of the emails. I am not sure whether I am at liberty to distribute this or not.”

    He also says that “there were many email exchanges among the members, Ron Oxburgh, and his assistants leading up to the meeting. There are some more formal letters from Oxburgh to us talking about what we were supposed to be doing. But as I said before, I would be feel more comfortable if you got those from Oxburgh. They are in the form of letters addressed to each of us individually.”

    Emanuel said that he took handwritten notes, but “since virtually everything I wrote down was, in one form or another, incorporated in our final report, I did not save the notes.”

    The Oxburgh “report” is only a few pages long, so Emanuel must not have had many notes.

    • geo
      Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

      I do not say such things lightly, but I am at a loss from the above communication from Emanual (which makes a great deal more sense for how one would expect even an ‘informal’ investigation to have operated when its members are spread around the western hemisphere) how one can avoid calling Oxburgh a liar at this point, however nicely dressed up the actual verbiage used to do so is.

      It is interesting that Emanual even chose to engage at this point, rather than just keeping his head down and muttering to himself about Oxburgh’s representations to you.

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

      Was this a real ‘meeting’ or a video-conference?

      If it was real and Emanuel had travelled 3000 miles from MIT to UEA for a two day investigation, it beggars belief that he did not keep the notes.

      Moreover, even if it was a video-conference, given the importance of the issue following the manifest public impact of climategate , it still beggars belief he did not keep the notes.

    • Edwin
      Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

      Knowing the enquiry was from you, Steve , over a sensitive issue, and that any reply would likely find its way here, it is beyond comprehension that Emanuel would “mis-spoke”.
      One would have thought he seeked legal consultation before typing the first word.
      Come on…..may be English is not his first language, may be its BabelFish.

    • jeff id
      Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

      I think half the problem Steve faces is his name. He should choose something less ominous when writing. Perhaps one of the following would set the polyscienticians at ease.

      Steve Vader
      Steve the Hun
      Steve Amajinidad
      Steve Chavez

      It is amazing the lengths these people will go to to prevent potential criticisms. Heck, maybe we’d like the terms of the clearly in depth investigation.

  20. ZT
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

    Wow – this is extraordinary – the Lord Ronnie inquiry malleable reality distortion field captured shifting in real time.

    One wonders if among these ‘many email exchanges’ – something resembling the terms or ‘charge’ of inquiry was mentioned? One might suspect that Emanuel would have hesitated to lend his time and reputation to an activity with no defined purpose.

    And it would be interesting to define ‘real’ in the context of ‘real’ document. Was there a slightly less than ‘real’ (electronic) document? Where will the ‘truth’ shift to next?! I think that we are ready for the official definition of ‘is’ now.

  21. mpaul
    Posted Jun 5, 2010 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

    “They are in the form of letters addressed to each of us individually”

    When Lord Oxburgh wished to communicate with other members of the panel, he would place a caulk mark on the curb in a previously designated place. Each member of the committee was instructed to visit this place once per day. If they saw the caulk mark, each member then knew that a dead drop was to be arranged for that day.

    Emanuel’s dead drop was an ordinary park bench in an out-of-the-way part of town. Oxburgh’s communication would be taped to the bottom side of the park bench.

    The communications themselves were written on a kind of special paper that was impregnated with acid — thus ensuring that the paper would dissolve in a few days, leaving no trace behind.

    It was essential that no single member knew the entity of the terms of reference. It was a necessary precaution in this line of work. Such was the craft that these men practiced; such was the life of the climate inquisitors.

  22. Ben
    Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 12:43 AM | Permalink

    What if…think for a second, what if they are both telling the truth?

    When you asked Kerry Emanuel for the documents, they did exist, but after you emailed Lord Oxburgh they were burnt? In that case the good Lord did not tell a fabrication, in that there are no longer any documents so to speak….

    I know…conspiracy theory, but it is a possibility other then one of them telling falsehoods..

    • Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 9:03 AM | Permalink

      Why would you burn them?

      • ben
        Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

        Well shread them, delete them…shrug, I just like the term burn for climate scientists because of its usage in common with “burning CO2…” I like to mis-use the English Language myself, and when I see it mis-used by climate scientists as much as politicians…just makes me want to mis-use it back at em..

    • David S
      Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 10:31 AM | Permalink

      I’m with you Ben. Oxburgh’s use of the present tense – “none of the documents about which you inquire exists” does carry an implication for the suspicious that the documents might have existed at some point in the past. Next question (2 in one): if none of these documents exists, did any of them or sny similar documents exist and if so, when and why were they lost and destroyed? We may be heading down the Phil Jones “dog ate my homework” path.

    • Dave
      Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 4:16 AM | Permalink

      No, no, no. We don’t accuse anyone of lying on the basis of flimsy evidence like this. English is inherently imprecise, and it’s very possible to be thinking something which doesn’t come across when you write it.

      If someone says they meant something other than what we’re reading into their words, then we should accept that. Any one instance of that isn’t even remarkable, in just the way that it’s not particularly terrible, in and of itself if some set of data wasn’t properly archived over the long term. Steve, in this case, is simply collating instances of things where we have to take someone’s word for something. Individually, they each seem ok-ish, but it’s the cumulative effect that leaves some people short of credibility to spread around to cover each of the places we’re asked to take their word for something.

      In this particular instance, we’re certainly not out of the mis-communication wood. My instinct is that Oxburgh is *not* being deliberately obfuscatory, but genuinely believes in his inquiry. His answer to Steve is perfectly reasonable as long as *Oxburgh* believes the statement that “the review, which I was rather reluctant to undertake, to try to determine whether their staff had been deliberately dishonest in their research activities”. He appears to believe that his remit was not to investigate dubious suppression of other research, or self-promotion, but whether the actual numbers were made up. I think it’s clear that even if Team members indulged in all kinds of unedifying tactics to promote acceptance of their work and suppress dissent, the work itself, although perhaps/probably flawed, was real research.

      I would, at this stage, write back to Oxburgh, as he requests in his final paragraph, explaining, very precisely, what it is you wish to establish – although that may be as little as to more clearly define what the inquiry was about. I get the impression that it was never designed as an answer to Steve – more as an answer to the most basic question being posed by some nutters as to whether there was any research there at all. This whole incident starts to make a lot more sense if we stipulate that Oxburgh carried out a quick informal check that there was some genuine work at the root of all this mess which was merely spun into something more significant.

    • geo
      Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

      Since Oxburgh says that he is responsible for answering for the group, all he had to do was delete his own email store on the subject and there ya go –the documents do not exist in the official store; any documents elsewhere are not “official” and are just “personal notes” that he can’t endorse anyone going after.

      snip – political imagery unhelpful

  23. John Blake
    Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

    Someone would have to bring up Set Theory (Cantor et al.) Adducing the (finite) “set of all sets” entails the proposition that a part is equal the whole: “The concept of everything has nothing in it.” On this basis, may we not say that absent any extant single item Lord Oxburgh’s bruited totality of climate inquiries is empty?

    Theory meets Practice at midnight under Charter Oak when the pale moon is full.

  24. ZT
    Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

    I can see the UEA interview questions of the future…

    You are in a prison, guarded by two climatologist inquiry team members, one of whom is inclined to be more economical with the truth than the other, and you can only ask one climatologist one question, … etc.

    • charles the moderator
      Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 3:44 AM | Permalink

      Re: ZT (Jun 6 18:27),

      ZT, you truly had me laugh out loud at that one. I may have even woken my famous roommate who is sleeping a couple rooms away.

      With all this careful parsing of language used by Oxburgh and Emanuel, I’m wondering now if we should focus on the meaning of the word “document” or “real document” to quote Emanuel.

      Is an email a document? Or…does a document exist only if the email contains an attachment of some form of document file?

      What is a real vs a not real (unreal, imaginary) document? An i*document? Or has that been trademarked by Apple.

      I have conducted business with long bullet-ed lists contained in an email with no attachment and generally considered that a written record, and it may well have been, but was it a….document….in the acrobatic minds of Oxburgh and Emanuel, maybe not. It’s a shame “winged it” North wasn’t on the panel. [oops, I'm not supposed to mention him on this blog]

      • steven Mosher
        Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 4:06 AM | Permalink

        don’t worry I was having a bad dream where I was in a prison guarded two climatologists….

        • Geoff Sherrington
          Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 4:35 AM | Permalink

          Steven Mosher, Were you a model prisoner?

        • steven Mosher
          Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 11:37 AM | Permalink

          haha. good one

        • Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

          Probably just a misfit.

        • steven Mosher
          Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

        • Ben
          Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

          I had a dream where I was guarded by two climatologists, but it involved them getting high and taking some acid, and then they forced me to do the same thing.

          It turned bad when I took the acid and started agreeing with them…

          Lets just say that my dreams are very weird…and when I think of climatologists I think of 50 year old hippies who have smoked weed for 30 years, but shrug, I know its not a truth, its just the image I conjure whenever I picture them in my mind.

          Generalizations are bad, but shrug, figured that one was worth a laugh…

        • woodNfish
          Posted Jun 8, 2010 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

          Generalizations are bad, but shrug, figured that one was worth a laugh…

          Actually, they are not bad. They are necessary for survival. You wouldn’t walk alone into a dark alley filled with Brit soccer fans would you?

      • John Murphy
        Posted Jun 10, 2010 at 2:08 AM | Permalink

        In my jurisdiction (Queensland, Australia), an email (whether printed or in electronic form) is a document as defined by the Evidence Act and by the Federal Freedom of Information Act and by the Queensland Right to Information Act.

        By the way, I wonder how those turkeys at CRU (mainly that shonk David Palmer) and Oxburgh would travel with a Right to Information Act?

  25. Rob R
    Posted Jun 6, 2010 at 10:44 PM | Permalink

    Sir Humphry Appleby would be proud of the outcome of the enquiry but perhaps not the ensuing pea and shell game resulting from it. Its all just too obvious.

  26. Britannic no-see-um
    Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    ‘The Oxburgh “report” is only a few pages long, so Emanuel must not have had many notes.’

    Interesting to discover how much it cost UEA, per word, for this magnificent celebration of learned erudition.

  27. Daniel
    Posted Jun 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    What about next shoe ? Am wondering whether there is any downside limit to the indignity of this CRU (and British climate science) face keeping exercise. It’s a quagmire !

  28. Mac
    Posted Jun 8, 2010 at 5:08 AM | Permalink

    Are we any further forward in this paper chase?

    No, not really. It looks like the Oxburgh report fully reflects the scope of the investigation undertaken – all 9 pages worth.

    It is the nature of the report’s flimsiness that the panelists are now trying to obscure. Both Emanuel and Oxburgh are attempting to hide nothingness.

  29. Barry Woods
    Posted Jun 8, 2010 at 7:25 AM | Permalink

    A VERY brief chance to comment on the new UK Coalition’s Governments programme for “Energy and Climate Change” – 2 DAYS left!

    http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/energy-and-climate-change/

    “Programme for Government – Have Your Say on Energy and Climate Change Policy

    Do you want to help shape the Coalition Government’s energy and climate change policies?

    The Programme for Government website gives you the opportunity to enter public discussion on key areas.

    Departments will then use comments for policy development and the Government will also respond in coming weeks to the most popular areas of feedback.

    The comments function on the website will close at the end of Thursday 10 June.
    ———-
    I put a comment(below) on that Steve may appreciate, found in New Scientist:
    ————
    How climate scientists can repair their reputation

    http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=mg20627624.700

    in the comments section:

    “They have much more than reputation to rebuild. A good colleague of mine who in total frustration had to use the Freedom of Information Act to extract information from CRU found himself under investigation by the anti-terrorist branch of the local Police force. Kafaesque!”

    http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=mg20627624.700

    Before we spend billions….

    please do some open broad enquiries into CRU – Climate Research Unit, UEA, scientists at he heart of the IPCC process and the IPCC ( ie no direct financial vested interests – climategate – CRU oxborough enquiry)

    Not for anything criminal, just competance/credibility.

  30. Jürgen K.
    Posted Jun 9, 2010 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    Dear Sirs,
    I wonna ask, if you know the “new” paper of Esper et al. In my opinion “Trends and uncertainties in Siberian indicators of 20th century warming”, in: Global Change Biology (2010) 16, 386–398, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01913.x., shows, that Briffa and “Yamal” can`t be right at all but I am no scientist.

    Please take a look by yourself.

    Wishes from Austria,
    Jürgen

    Steve: See http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/03/esper-et-al-2009-on-west-siberia/

  31. John Murphy
    Posted Jun 9, 2010 at 5:44 PM | Permalink

    Steve

    I have received a response to an FOI request I made to the UEA. You might be interested in their (predictable) reasons for refusing most of my request and also in the data files they did give me.

    If you can tell me how to send the stuff to you I will do so. You are welcome to use my email address direct.

  32. Old Dad
    Posted Jun 9, 2010 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    Thanks for your diligence. My students occasionally turn in research supported by undocumented “verbal” sources. They fail.

    Lord Oxburgh clearly takes us for fools.

4 Trackbacks

  1. By Top Posts — WordPress.com on Jun 5, 2010 at 7:17 PM

    [...] Oxburgh versus Emanuel In response to my inquiry asking for a copy of any document setting out the terms of reference of the inquiry, Lord [...] [...]

  2. By Climateaudit « Newsbeat1 on Jun 7, 2010 at 8:20 PM

    [...] “I am afraid that I am not able to be very helpful as none of the documents about which you inquire exists.“ [...]

  3. By | Eye on Britain (2) on Jun 10, 2010 at 8:24 AM

    [...] SOURCE [...]

  4. [...] Climate Audit [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,381 other followers

%d bloggers like this: