Here’s something that sure surprised my family (and me.)
McShane and Wyner is being published as a “discussion paper” and has attracted numerous submissions so far, including a discussion by Ross and I which has been accepted. As readers have noticed, discussions by Schmidt, Mann and Rutherford and by Tingley are online. Other submissions have been made by Wahl and Ammann and by Nychka […]
The Oxburgh Report stated: The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society. This statement has been questioned ever since the publication of the Oxburgh Report. That the Royal […]
Andrew Montford’s review of the Climategate Inquiries is released today and is online here. Ross McKitrick’s is online here.
Who recommended Oxburgh to chair the Science Appraisal Panel? Who indeed? In their press statement announcing the “Science” Appraisal Panel, the University of East Anglia stated: His [Oxburgh’s] appointment has been made on the recommendation of the Royal Society, which has also been consulted on the choice of the six distinguished scientists who have been […]
Shortly after the release of the Muir Russell report, I criticized their wrongheaded and untrue finding that there had not been an outstanding FOI request at the time of the notorious Jones’ request to delete all emails seeking information on IPCC correspondence that, in Fred Pearce’s words, was a ‘subversion” of IPCC policy on openness […]
Almost none of Oxburgh’s testimony to the Science and technology Committee can be taken at face value. Even on something as simple as climate background of Lisa Graumlich and Kerry Emanuel, Oxburgh’s statements to the committee were untrue.
The Oxburgh report stated that the eleven papers listed in their bibliography had been “selected on the advice of the Royal Society”. This assertion was immediately criticized at Andrew Montford’s and here. The Oxburgh Report’s claim that the papers had been selected “on the advice of the Royal Society” can be said with almost total […]
The Guardian’s story on Oxburgh’s testimony (James Randerson here) is headlined: Oxburgh: UEA vice-chancellor was wrong to tell MPs he would investigate climate research and sub-headlined: Edward Acton gave ‘inaccurate’ information to MPs by telling them the university would reassess key scientific papers following the UEA climate emails controversy. And indeed, this is one of […]
In response to a question asking Oxburgh about criticisms that the report – all five of pages of it – appeared “rushed and superficial”, Oxburgh described how the panel had patiently stayed in Norwich to see the project through. Oxburgh (my approximate transcript at about 10:51 time on program): After we had done all the […]
Climate Audit 