“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

In my view of Oxburgh’s testimony, I would say that he was prompted and prepared by others, but that his delivery seems to be a bit vague and kind of like the unpreparted Sahara Palin performance with Katie Couric.

Oxburgh did mention the problem of climate scientists not dealing better with the uncertainty of their findings. I think that this is an area that is becoming a more widely established criticism of some climate scientists.

They did a joint 3-page pdf with NERC and the Met Office last November where they say the UK is “at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change”. It includes the statement

even since the last Assessment Report the scientific evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has grown.

They did a 2-page statement for Copenhagen last December called “Preventing dangerous climate change” which said

There is no such thing as ‘safe’ climate change

and

It is certain that GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these GHGs are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

Bob Ward as recent PR man for the RS, together with the above, all suggests that the RS have abandoned Science for alarmist activism, at least until recently. Since all their work mentioned here draws on others to make sweeping statements (some of which we now know are false) without actually doing science, it seems of a piece that they would have to draw on expertise outside themselves for anything to do with expert pronouncements on UEA. And going on their record here, they would be incapable of evaluating the science that UEA did.

However, their promised new guide to climate change does include Michael Kelly as one of the team of authors. If Kelly is given sufficient standing, this guide could turn the corner and actually return the RS to Science. Sure, the RS were caught with their pants down. But all these little well-aimed kicks from Steve and others could be having the desired effect – even if “he who must not be named” is never mentioned let alone thanked.

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

I’m reading a book at present on the origins of the Royal Society – Hooke,Boyle,Wren etc.. (the greats of the scientific method).

they must be turning in their graves.