Climate Audit

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 certainty to be untrue – though they have taken no steps to issue a corrigendum. Nor has the identity of the author of the list ever been revealed by Oxburgh or the Royal Society. I think that I’ve figured out who actually prepared the list.

The question of who exactly chose the eleven papers arose again yesterday. You’d have thought that, given the controversy last spring and summer (Roger Harrabin weighed in on it as well) that Oxburgh would have found out who made the list. Or that Oxburgh would have had enough respect for the Committee to have an answer ready for them.

But that wasn’t the case. Oxburgh’s answers to the simple question – who made the list – were evasive and/or inaccurate. Oxburgh continued to pretend that the Royal Society had been involved in selecting the list, but fumbled even on the simple point as to whether he had been given the list (there’s incontrovertible evidence that he had) before they asked the Royal Society.

Here’s an approximate transcript of Stringer’s questions:

Q – Right. Can you tell us how did you choose the 11 publications?
Ox- We didn’t choose the 11 publications. They were basically what… We needed something that would be provide a pretty good introduction to work of the unit as it had evolved over the years. The publications were suggested to us came via the university and by the royal society, I believe. We feel ..let me just emphasize..they were just a start… because all of us were novices in this area, we all felt that they were a very good introduction – we moved on. We looked at other publications… we asked for raw materials, things of that kind. The press made quite a meal out of the choice of publications. For anyone on the panel, this all seems over the top. It didn’t have that significance.
Q – there are two things that arise out of that. It was a small unit. Are you saying that Jones, the subject of the investigation, chose the papers that were to be investigated… and that it wasn’t the panel or Royal Society?
Ox – No suggestion Jones chose them,
Q – Where did they come from?
Ox- I believe they came … I suspect that that the […] involved was Professor Liss who was acting head of the unit who’d been brought in from outside the unit…he’s been an chemical oceanographer who is broadly interested in area. he in consultation with people with royal society and maybe others outside the unit who had some familiarity with the area.
Q -So the list did not come from the unit – you’re absolutely categorical ?
Ox – Well I cant …
Q – So the list did not come from CRU?
Ox – I can’t prove a negative. There’s absolutely no indication that it did.
Q – Your publicity said that it came from royal society. The Panel was given the list before the Royal Society was asked.
Ox – I… Not as far as I know. You might be right but I don’t believe so. No certainly I don’t think that can be true.

Backstory
Once again, the backstory continues to fill in.

Last spring, Andrew Montford and I both observed that the list differed in only one article from the CRU articles listed in the references to the UEA submission to the Committee. Since then, there’s some new information that is relevant to the question.

The earliest version of the list comes on March 4, as an attachment to emails from Trevor Davies to UK Chief Scientist John Beddington and separately to Rees, Hoskins, Oxburgh and Liss. In the email to Beddington, Oxburgh said:

For background I attach 1) a draft letter which will be sent to David by Ron 2) a list of the papers we anticipate will be examined.

In the email to Rees, Hoskins, Oxburgh and Liss, Davies said:

I attach a draft letter which Ron will send to these people as the formal invitation. You may find it helpful background as you talk to the invitees and […]. I also attach a list of CRU publications which we anticipate asking the panel members to assess.

I’ve placed the March 4 version online here. Note that it contains the additional editorial language:

These key publications have been selected because of their pertinence to the specific criticisms which have been levelled against CRU’s research findings as a result of the theft of emails.

On Mar 11, the same list was sent to the panelists as an attachment – see here for a copy.

Davies was advised by the UEA Press that they would be under great pressure to identify the papers being studied (in the end, they didn’t identify the papers.) On March 12, Davies sent an email to Rees and Hoskins, saying the Oxburgh had reconciled himself to disclosing the papers, but wanted to be able to say that they had been chosen “in consultation with the Royal Society”. Davies asked for permission (even though the papers had already been sent out to panelists without consulting the Royal Society and had definitely not been “selected by the Royal Society” as Oxburgh later claimed in his report:

Dear Martin and Brian,

The UEA Press Office advises us that the Panel and UEA will come under enormous pressure for details of the publications to be assessed when we announce the membership of the Panel (probably Thursday).[not done until March 22 here ]

Initially we did not wish to do this but we have now been persuaded this is probably a good idea and it may, indeed, deflect other disruptive efforts by some in the media/blogosphere. Ron is comfortable with this, but is keen that we can say that it was constructed in consultation with the Royal Society.

I did send you this list earlier, which I attach again here.[List obtained] They represent the core body of CRU work around which most of the assertions have been flying. They are also the publications which
featured heavily in our submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry, and in our answers to the Muir Russell Review’s questions.

I would be very grateful if you would be prepared to allow us to use a form of words along the lines: “the publications were chosen in consultation with The Royal Society”.

Best Wishes
Trevor

Within 12 minutes, Rees answered back that he had no relevant expertise, but was untroubled by the university using his name as a rubber stamp:

Dear Trevor,
It seems to me that the scope of the panel’s work is a matter primarily for Ron, but if Brian is also happy with this choice of papers (as you know, I have no relevant expertise myself!) I see no problem with saying that the list was drawn up in consultation.
best wishes
Martin

A few minutes later, Hoskins (who later admitted to Harrabin that he was not an expert in the area) closed the consultation as follows;

Dear Trevor
I am not aware of all the papers that could be included in the list, but I do think that these papers do cover the issues of major concern.
Best wishes
Brian

So much for British due diligence. Rees later described this process to Montford as consultation with “experts”.

But back to Oxburgh’s evidence. Oxburgh had already sent the list out to panelists on March 11 and, when confronted by a possible need to publicly identify the articles, he and Davies wanted to cooper up the situation by saying the list had been developed “in consultation with” the Royal Society, asking the Royal Society for consent for such terminology on March 12.
But in his evidence to the Committee, Oxburgh, confronted with the assertion that the panel was given the list before the Royal Society was asked, prevaricated – even though he was the one who, according to the Davies email, had wanted to cooper up the situation:

Q – Your publicity said that it came from royal society. The Panel was given the list before the Royal Society was asked.
Ox – I… Not as far as I know. You might be right but I don’t believe so. No certainly I don’t think that can be true.

The Mystery Author
So who was the mystery author? Was it, as Oxburgh told the committee, “Peter Liss … in consultation with people with Royal Society and maybe others outside the unit who had some familiarity with the area”?

Well, there’s no evidence that Peter Liss was involved. Nobody from the Royal Society has taken ownership of the list. Nor have the mysterious outsiders been identified.

However, I think that there’s a clue in the companion editorial language: “These key publications have been selected because of their pertinence to the specific criticisms which have been levelled against CRU’s research findings as a result of the theft of emails.”

Consider the following interesting exchange on march 19 between David Hand and someone at the UEA Vice Chancellor’s Office (presumable Lisa Williams of the Oxburgh Inquiry letterhead.) where Hand asks for further particulars on the actual criticisms against CRU:

From: Hand, David J
To: […] VCO
Sent: 19 March 2010 10:53
Subject: RE: Arrival and departure times

Dear […]
I assume you received my amended short bio?

At the end of your suggested list of peer-reviewed publications for assessment, you said “These key publications have been selected because of their pertinence to the specific criticisms which have been levelled against CRU’s research findings as a result of the theft of emails. ”

Would it be possible to give us details of these specific criticisms before the meeting?
David

Shortly afterwards, Hand received a reply from the VCO’s office (again presumably Lisa Williams), directing him not to Climate Audit or to submissions by me or Ross McKitrick to the Science and Technology Committee, but to the University’s submission to the committee and the university’s website where their press statements were located:

From: [….] VCO
Sent: 19 March 2010 13:14
To : Hand, David J
Subject: RE: Arrival and departure times
Attachments: -Panel Biographies.doc
David
Yes we did, thank you. I hope the version we now have is ok?

In terms of criticisms, perhaps the university’s submission to the Muir Russell and parliamentary select committee reviews would give you some background. Would it be helpful for me to send them on?

Also the UEA web page has various statements about the allegations which you might find informative.

Also the UEA web page has various statements about the allegations which you might find informative https:///www.ueas.ac.ik/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements

Best
[…]

There’s a pretty obvious candidate for authorship of the list: Lisa Williams of the Vice Chancellor’s Office.

She regarded herself as qualified to answer Hand’s inquiry about the criticisms. Perhaps she regarded herself as qualified to make the list. Tellingly, she referred Hand to the university’s submission to parliament – the precise source of all but one article on the list. My guess is that she collated the CRU articles from the university’s submission, for some reason, adding an extra Briffa article (Briffa et al 2001) and subtracting a Jones temperature article (Jones et al 1997). Or perhaps the variation took place in different draft versions of the university submission, Lisa working off an earlier draft.

Hand’s email talks about “your suggested list of peer-reviewed publications for assessment” and comments on the editorializing about the articles as follows:

you said “These key publications have been selected because of their pertinence to the specific criticisms which have been levelled against CRU’s research findings as a result of the theft of emails. “

Maybe the “your” should be taken literally here – as referring to Lisa Williams herself, as opposed to the university generically though the latter would not be precluded if all we had was the Hand email.

In addition, inspection of the author properties of the list version sent to panelists shows Lisa Williams as the author. Why would she type up a list prepared by Peter Liss or the Royal Society?

Stringer asked Oxburgh if Jones had selected the articles – which was categorically denied by Oxburgh. But think about this for a moment. Lisa Williams (or someone like Lisa Williams) collated the list of articles from the UEA submission to Parliament defending CRU – a submission in which they put their best possible face on things like the trick – selecting articles where the trick was disclosed. (I had cited some of these articles in 2005 in my first posts on what was later called the “trick”). Whether Jones personally chose the citations for the UEA submission, it seems inconceivable that CRU wasn’t involved in choosing the citations that put the best possible face.

My guess right now – CRU selected the articles for the submission and that Lisa Williams made the list based on the UEA submission, adding her own editorial comment that

These key publications have been selected because of their pertinence to the specific criticisms which have been levelled against CRU’s research findings as a result of the theft of emails.

My surmise is that the selection has nothing to do with the Royal Society. Nor with “outsiders who are familiar with the area.” But with an administrator at UEA with no knowledge of the area.

I caution that I don’t know this for sure. The persons who should have known the answer before saying that the articles were “selected on the advice of the Royal Society” are of course Oxburgh and his panelists, including David Hand.

It would have been easy for Oxburgh to find out who actually made the list, together with its editorial comment, and inform the Committee. However, Oxburgh thought so little of his obligations to the Committee that he didn’t bother finding out, instead spinning his own guesses about Peter Liss consulting with the Royal Society and mysterious outsiders. Guesses and fantasies where he could have obtained facts.

Update (late afternoon): As others observe, the evidence in favor of Lisa Williams is inconclusive. However I am totally certain that the March 4 list that was sent to panelists on March 11 was produced at UEA based on the UEA submission. Maybe it was done by Trevor Davies and not Lisa Williams, maybe it was someone else. I’ve sent an email to Lisa Williams asking for clarification. What is not in doubt for me is that the list was either drafted by CRU or by someone with UEA administrative responsibilities who had no expertise in the area and that Oxburgh’s allusions to consultations with mysterious outside experts is a fairy story for the Science Committee.