The Oxburgh “report” said that the eleven “representative” publications that it reviewed had been “selected on the advice of the Royal Society”. The eleven articles were so implausible a representation that it seemed scarcely credible that they could have been selected by any person with any expertise in the field. I asked the Royal Society […]
In response to requests for mundane information such as the terms of reference of the Oxburgh Inquiry, Oxburgh pretty much laid down a gauntlet for an FOI inquiry, asserting that no relevant documents existed. I am afraid that I am not able to be very helpful as none of the documents about which you inquire […]
I asked Ronald Oxburgh, chairman of what may be the most [self-snip] “inquiry” in recent experience, a few simple questions about the terms of reference and documentation of this “inquiry” – an “inquiry” in which, to their shame, Kerry Emanuel, David Hand, Herbert Huppert, Lisa Graumlich, Michael Kelly and Huw Davies, were complicit. Oxburgh sent […]
The UK government has provided an incomplete response to Andrew Montford’s FOI request for copies of “correspondence or documentation” related to “the appointment of the [Oxburgh} panel or its deliberations”. However, even the incomplete information so far shows that UK government Chief Scientist John Beddington played a critical role. In addition, it contains the remarkable […]
As a spin-off from looking at Mann of Oak proxies, I did (what I regard) as a pretty bit of decoding of some measurement data in the Climategate documents. The Climategate directory documents/briffa-treering-external/stepan/ contains a large number of tree ring measurement files dated July 1996 (with the characteristic suffix .rwl) with 3-character labels, “ala” “all” […]
The LA Times laundered Oxburgh’s BBC interview, a laundering which tricked even Pielke Jr. In the original BBC interview, Oxburgh was asked: Obviously there has been a lot of concern from climate change sceptics who brought this matter to the public eye. If you look at the wording of the emails, the fact is that […]
The Oxburgh “Report” states that the eleven CRU publications that they examined are “representative”, “were selected on the advice of the Royal Society” and that CRU agreed that they are a “fair sample” of CRU’s work. The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a […]
The Oxburgh “report” on proxy reconstructions is about 1.5 pages long and doesn’t take long to parse – which I’ll begin below. No one should construe the fact that I’m commenting on these nine paragraphs as endorsing the idea that nine paragraphs – especially these none paragraphs – constitute a thorough review of CRU proxy […]
The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages. They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took […]
The BBC reports that Lord Oxburgh of Globe International is to report his report on CRU science, perhaps tomorrow. The panel was first announced on March 22, 2010 – see here. No terms of reference were disclosed then, nor, to my knowledge, have they been disclosed subsequently. Harrabin says that “members of the panel are […]
