Steve: thanks for commenting. As advisers on public relations, did you play any role in identifying or selecting the three peer review examples. As noted in my post, two of the three were never mentioned at Climate Audit and were not the main examples under discussion at the time. how did they get selected? Also did Luther Pendragon employees contribute to the drafting of any of the sections of the Muir Russell report?

First question, why was the Royal Society involved at all?

Second question, did the RS discuss the list verbally, or did a person such as Lord Rees do the discussion as President, later saying it represented the RS?

Remember the strange wording of the email -
…………………………….
Dear Martin [Rees] and Brian [Hoskins],

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.

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. 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
………………………………

Surely this procedure needs confirmation. An Affirmation or Statutory Declaration from the main parties would seem to be in order, noting the date of the “conversation” and the main points of it.

The problem is that the whole structure of the Muir Report leans on endorsement by the RS of the choice of papers to be examined, when in fact the list not have been endorsed by the RS at all. Is the President empowered to make such a statement on behalf of the RS membership? I think not.

Still, “the best laid plans”.

it is in keeping with the general air of cluelessness about the inquiry.

Cluelessness? Thimble-rigging?

[78] The affair over the Soon and Baliunas paper is, in my view, a sad indicator of the intolerant environment in the climatology community, especially since the paper in question was giving evidence of uncertainties that we now know were privately shared by others in the field. However the main instigators of the campaign to harass and discredit Climate Research were not apparently at the CRU so it is not directly relevant to the Inquiry.

That was it. And nothing on the other 2 incidents. I hadn’t thought about it before this post, but it is odd that they focused so much on those incidents. Then again it is in keeping with the general air of cluelessness about the inquiry.

A clear case of the drunk looking for his lost car keys under the streetlight. He lost them in the alley with the hooker but the alley is dark and scary and he wouldn’t see them anyway so why look there?

Although some decent questions were asked, they avoided answering directly and came up with all kinds of other reasons for what they did.

Not very impressive.