On Friday, the UK Information Commissioner ruled against my request for (1) the attachments to the Wahl-Briffa email that contained Wahl’s surreptitious changes to the AR4 Report from the language sent to reviewers to language much more favorable to Mann and Wahl; (2) Wahl and Ammann (2004, submitted), cited in the AR4 First Draft, the […]
Bishop Hill reports that the UK government response to the SciTech Committee is now online here. The UK government submission “tricked” (TM- climate science) the SciTech Committee with untrue and/or deceptive assertions that the Muir Russell and Oxburgh reports were carried out ‘independently of Government and Government had no role in informing how these reviews […]
New report from the UK Sci Tech Committee. (I’m traveling – see Bishop Hill for link.) My take is that the Committee was annoyed with the University of East Anglia, being quite critical of the inquiries in the running text, but have decided that there are other more pressing priorities and that it’s time to […]
Stringer (at about 9.53) observed: A lot of the papers that the controversy was about – the multiproxy papers – were not included. Trevor Davies answered: I will dispute that. Trevor Davies then proceeded to make a lengthy statement that did not, in fact, contradict Stringer’s point that the multiproxy papers in the most controversy […]
9.20 am UK time. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6785 Beddington is also appearing. Too early for me. I guess that I’ll see the replay. Update: Report webpage Muir Russell evidence Oxburgh evidence Report Additional evidence
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.
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 […]
