There aren’t may times when I disagree with you but I most definitely disagree with you on this one.

IMO Hoskins is ‘up to his neck’ on this one. IMO he is one definitely one of the gatekeepers. How else would he get to be appointed to the UK Climate Change Committee along with Rees otherwise?

IMO the reason why they (Oxburgh and Hoskins in this case) ‘understand how and why this happened’ is because they are part of the whole system that has been put in place (by those who really run the UK) to justify (pretend to) ‘de-carbonising’ the UK economy. IMO they have no intentions of ‘de-carbonising’ the UK economy to any great extent. Rather their ‘paymasters’ intentions are to use the whole climate change issue as a means of taking complete control of the UK economy.

The battle to stop them doing this Steve is now raging and we are currently losing it because the vast majority of UK taxpayers don’t know or don’t really care about what is going on.

Snip this if you want Steve (I won’t be offended), but I’m afraid this is exactly what is going on and I think in your heart of hearts you know it but are too polite to admit it.

The thread was the “Due Diligence..” thread and her is the relevenat part from it.

“Also given that Brian Hoskins was a review editor on the IPCC AR4 WG1 he is also clearly shall we say ‘being economical with the truth’ when he says that he isn’t familar with the details of CRUs ‘core’ work. He was in regular contact with the ‘good Dr Phil’ and Susan Solomon the other WG1 lead authors throughout the entire AR4 production process.

Also for those who don’t already know he is also along with Rees a member of the UK’s Climate Change Committee
- snip- policy

What a joke!

Steve: I’m prepared to stipulate that Hoskins is not familiar with the paleoclimate literature.
”

I believe the words you snipped were ‘lying bastards”

“We all understand how and why this happened” – thos eare Oxburgh’s words Steve, as spoken to Hoskins.

Have you now chnage dyour mind and do you now agree with me that all of them (Hoskins and Oxburgh at the very least) are fully familiar with CRU’s ‘core’ work.

Steve: I re-iterate that I’m prepared to stipulate that Hoskins is not familiar with the paleoclimate literature. I have no idea what understanding they may have shared in respect to the comment you cite, but believe that it falls well short of being familiar with the paleoclimate literature.

Om another thread I pointed out that I thought Brian Hoskins was more than familar with the paleo-reconstruction record of CRU. You disagreed with me. On that other tread Steve I pointed out that Brin Hoskins as a Review Editor for AR4 was IMO more than familiar with the work that CRU had done and that unfortunately in the UK we have to put up with tha fact that Hoskins and Rees are both members of our UK Climate Change Committee. In the light of this email Steve, have you now changed your mind?

Steve: The Parliamentary Committee said that they expected the Science Appraisal Panel to consider the trick (which involved CRU scientists at IPCC). To the extent that they expected panels to consider their opinions, they were disappointed. To the extent that they were led to believe that Oxburgh would consider CRU conduct at IPCC, they were tricked.

No, it is’nt!
The all-american cowboy outfit Transocean is to blame.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2511076620100525