Yesterday I reported that Boulton’s 2007 CV included the following:
9. CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE & RESEARCH POLICY
…
As contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change
This morning, the hapless Muir Russell Inquiry added the following to their FAQ :
Some of the blogs are saying that Professor Geoffrey Boulton is connected to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – is this true?
No, it is not true. Professor Boulton has had no formal contact with the IPCC. He has not been a member of the Panel or made any submissions to it.
You have to watch the sly wording here as the Inquiry tries to divert blame from Boulton to the blogs.
This particular blog did not make up a story that Geoffrey Boulton was connected to the IPCC. To be precise, I reported that Boulton’s 2007 CV stated that he had been a “contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change”.
Boulton now denies ever having “been a member of the Panel or [having] made any submissions to it.”
Today’s puzzle. Was Boulton’s claim – that he had been a “contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change” – untrue?
Climate Audit 
49 Comments
Steve, see my question on previous Boulton blog. Can you be a ‘contributor’ without any formality or making a submission? Or has he contributed to quite different I Panels on climate change? I’ve asked them.
Steve: I guess we’ll find out. Maybe this can take place if you use a “trick”.
Hey, I love the way ‘uncoupled conversation’ among blogs encompasses the official inquiry website too now. History in the making.
Note to Muir Russell:
When you are already in a deep hole – stop digging!
snip – don’t mention politicians.
But it seems all the “scientists” involved are merely politicians! (smile)
Somewhat off-topic, I see Boulton is a glaciologist (if that’s a word).
Did he ever comment on the recent IPCC glacier hype/blunder?
Steve: why don’t you spend 5 seconds and look in the left frame for past posts and post in a Boulton Glaciergate thread?
Give the man a break! Doesn’t everyone embroider their CV?
Perhaps, but if one gets caught, at least outside of academia, one’s career may take a major turn for the worse.
Well, if he wrote the CV, (1) then even if he has “embroidered”, is this the level of integrity you want from a man involved in such an inquiry; and (2)even if false, doesn’t the fact that he chose to insert this claim in his CV indicate that he had the view that this would significantly enhance his CV? Doesn’t this indicate his attitude toward the IPCC?
As easy as it is to edit things on-line, do we know that the CV being referred to is one that Boulton did edit, or was it done by someone else and then posted online to discredit him?
It’s dangerous ground to question someone’s integrity when not knowing if the alteration was made by someone else and not the author of the CV.
Steve: In the then untranscribed and unavailable press conference, Boulton stated that there was an “important” omission in his Inquiry bio. Despite Boulton himself saying that there was an important omission, neither Boulton nor the Inquiry have taken steps to correct the online Inquiry bio that is their primary communication to the public.
I noticed Boulton is a co-author on a paper cited in AR4 – I’ve left the page and so lost the details, but lead author’s name started with an H, and the title of the paper was in German. Perhaps that’s his angle on “contributing”?
Steve: He’s not cited in the first 10 chapters of AR4 WG1. But rather than trying to think up answers for him, it would be better if someone in the UK wrote the inquiry. Or maybe a reporter will ask him.
That reminds me of the joke about the inflated CV that included the phrase: “Responsible for handling payroll.”
“As contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change”
is this exactly how it appeared in his CV? if so, “Intergovernmental Panels on climate change” could differ from THE “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. (Note the plural and lack of capitals in the former.)
Shouldn’t the request be made, possibly of the PR person, to describe exactly Boulton’s involvement with the IPCC, past and present? More efficient than playing word games like the use of “formal”.
Also, it’s quite evident that his inclusion in this inquiry is inappropriate. We can blog it to death here, but it seems a clear statement needs to be published from someone with some authority or weight to the effect that if he’s included, the findings will be considered biased, de facto. Not sure who would be best.
Also, I agree with Steve’s previous observation that the scope of this inquiry doesn’t require familiarity with climatology, that in fact it begs for someone outside that field. IMHO, backgrounds needed are legal and scientific ethics.
I read it as his NOT claiming any affiliation with IPCC.
Properly parsed, he’s claiming to have done work for “G8 Preparatory Groups…on climate change”, as well as “G8…Intergovernmental Panels on climate change.”
The G8 is decidedly NOT the same as the UN, which operates the IPCC.
What is the G8 ?
The G8 contains the richest countries in the world: USA, Germany, UK, Japan, France, Canada, Italy, Canada, Russia [and the EU]. It includes all of the permanent members of the UN Security Council [except China]. These countries fund most of the UN’s activities, including IPCC. [i.e. – There wouldn’t be an IPCC unless the G8 wanted one – Lesotho certainly wasn’t behind the formation of the IPCC.] These are the same heavy-hitter nations that attempted to push through an agreement at Copenhagen. Most of the important climate science and funding is coming out of these countries; the rest of the world is basically along for the ride.
Considering that the IPCC is a political organization, and we saw that, for example, the AR4 Summary for Policy Makers was released BEFORE the underlying Technical Report was completed, the opinions of the G8 are going to be highly relevant to the work of the IPCC.
His G8 work could have minimal relevance, or it could be very significant. There’s no way to know without investigating.
Canada attends twice…
Re: jim edwards (Feb 17 11:03),
Well , what with the snow situation in Vancouver they may need to double up their contribution again!
This shows there’s many ways to interpret his words and a clarification needs to be sought before we pillory him further on this particular issue.
It is clear that Muir Russell is wasting his time. He knows he had made a mistake and is out of his depth but cannot admit it. He is going to conduct a tainted inquiry that will almost certainly be rubbished by those who know something about what went on inside the UEA and other places. Boulton’s job is to control the questions and the agenda and muddy the waters enough to prevent any strong criticisms of the UEA.
Also, now that we can see the fingerprints of Boulton all over this inquiry it now becomes clear that use of the term “Team” which I have never ever heard used to self-describe a panel on an inquiry, was designed to provoke echoes of the hockey team and was a way for Boulton to raise hackles in the skeptic community.
Russell should realise that unless he takes action, far from enhancing his career, this will cause even longer term damage to his shaky reputation than his failures related to the overspend on the construction of the new Scottish parliament building.
The whole thing is increasingly unfathomable to me, from the perspective of an independent inquiry using any sensible interpretation of the word, “independent”. I am beginning to wonder, rather sadly, if the current chairman was appointed for a reason, i.e. to be a fairly inept and bumbling figure, while the inquiry is really driven behind the scenes by the passionate AGW petition-signing and CV writing (and editing) Boulton. There are any number of super-smart high court judges (or recently retired high court judges) in the UK with savage intellects (I should know, because I have been intellectually savaged by many in court) and extremely high ethical standards. Such judges are used to dealing with expert scientific evidence and large volumes of documents. Perhaps (I again sadly contemplate, having read the e-mails), that no such person was appointed because it was patently obvious that this kind of judge would give extremely short shrift to the likes of Boulton, and the ethical standards of the original “team”.
Re: Dr. Ross Taylor (Feb 17 11:24),
What a gloomily realistic view.
It is what I’ve reckoned for a while now about this whole charade.
We become reliant on the mainstream media doing something useful, which is not too reassuring.
Sorry to be gloomy about the inquiry Ian- the problem is that I am not a conspiracy theorist and have a basic view of a goodness of human nature that makes me very reluctant to draw such conclusions but it is difficult to interpret recent developments any other way. However, I am not gloomy about the greater picture. I passionately believe in the scientific method, that the truth will out (sooner or later) and that the tide has turned.
Perhaps I should add that by “the whole thing”, I mean not only Boulton but the original inclusion of the editor of nature, when nature itself was clearly implicated in the e-mails. If these people are acting with integrity, their actions show profound ignorance and buffoonery in relation to any possible standard of lack of bias in a tribunal. A basic principle of natural justice stretching back to the romans is “nemo judex in causa sua” (nobody shall be judge in his own cause), which is the root of the principle of an unbiased tribunal. How on earth could anyone have thought that the editor of nature could pass this test? how on earth could anyone think that Boulton can pass this test?
Re: Dr. Ross Taylor (Feb 17 11:54), a lawcourt requires a jury of “twelve just men and true” who are NOT experts in murder or whatever.
Here the jury has been deported to the blogs, protesting vigorously; and the Counsel for Prosecution has not even been invited.
However, I too live in hope. This situation, slowly spinning out of control, right in the public eye, with by-the minute corrections thanks to Steve and the audit team, may be the best possible way of opening up deep enough to reach the roots of the corruption in Climate Science that go far beyond Jones.
Unfortunately, I think that’s a pretty sound analysis.
It would probably be more accurate, now, to refer to this as the UEA Climate Change Email Review, headed by Professor Geoffrey Boulton OBE.
Boulton’s non-prejudicial opinion from a paper delivered to the David Hume Institute. See pages 23-26 (printed at the bottom).
Click to access HOP%2079%20Reducing%20Carbon%20Emissions%20-%20the%20View%20from%202050.pdf
He may or may not have been an IPCC contributor but he definitely memorized all the scary parts. He’s even perpetuated that rumor about the Netherlands.
Apologies- I just saw the same link in the previous thread. You have to be quick around here.
If readers want to help they can contact the press in the UK with emails and comments. Especially if you are UK citizens. Time’s a wasting
“Today’s puzzle. Was Boulton’s claim – that he had been a “contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change” – untrue?”
Probably not untrue if one defines “panels” loosely and it would be no surprise if there was some Edinburgh Preparatory Group help with the Blair-era G8 Summit in 2005. From http://www.scottishscience.org.uk/past-members-1.html#GeoffreyBoulton, “Professor Boulton has wide experience of chairing and serving on a broad range of UK and international scientific bodies. His research, for which he has received a number of international awards, is concerned with global environmental change, with implications for issues such as the disposal of radioactive waste.”
Science had a 20 October 2006 blurb (I had to log in to see it): “They’re Resolute on Institute…Despite a resounding lack of support from almost every group it is supposed to reach, the planned European Institute of Technology EIT) is still moving forward…The proposal still needs approval from the European Parliament and the council of ministers, but critics have largely given up hope of blocking the school’s creation, says Geoffrey Boulton of the University of Edinburgh in the U.K. He hopes now “to try to steer it” in a productive direction.”
I guess one can look at documents like this: http://www.rse.org.uk/organisation/review06_07.pdf. Here’s a link (Google .doc translation to a panel that another panel member mentioned G8 and Boulton talking about something else.
My favorite is http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/environmentallaw/postkyotoworkshop.aspx
Panel 2: Negotiating a Post-Kyoto Agreement (11.30am-1.00pm) (Professor Geoffrey Boulton)
(Panel kindly sponsored by the British Council)
Dr Gabi Hegerl, IPCC & University of Edinburgh, School of Geosciences (The Role and Methods of the IPCC in the Negotiating Process)
Lynn Sheppard, European Commission, DG Environment (EU cooperation with China and India: creating the conditions for greater engagement)
Prof Michael Northcott, University of Edinburgh, School of Divinity (Why carbon emissions trading is a bad idea)
Dr Angela Williams, University of Sussex, School of Law (Post-Kyoto and the Application of Justice Based Legal Principles)
Madeline Boyce at the University of Toronto has written what purports to be the only complete analysis of G8 climate change policy since 1979. Available here as pdf:
Click to access climate-boyce-090708.pdf
She seems like the person who might know Boulton’s connection to G8 climate preparations and panels, if anybody […and conveniently in Toronto]. She notes that it was the G8 that called for the formation of the IPCC, and later called for the Kyoto framework.
The G8 became the G8+5 [to include the other major players: China, Brazil, India, Mexico, and S. Africa]. In 2005, G8 invited the following organizations to their annual summit: International Energy Agency, International Monetary Fund, United Nations, World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation.
The 2005 meeting resulted in a shift for G8, when it released the Gleneagles Plan of Action, available here:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page7881
The Plan noted that:
“4. We reaffirm our commitment to the UNFCCC and to its ultimate objective to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. We reaffirm the importance of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and look forward to its 2007 report.
…
14. We acknowledge that the UNFCCC is the appropriate forum for negotiating future action on climate change. Those of us who have ratified the Kyoto Protocol welcome its entry into force and will work to make it a success.
15. We will work together to advance the goals and objectives we have agreed today to inform the work of the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal 2005. We are committed to move forward in that forum the global discussion on long-term co-operative action to address climate change.”
The Chairman’s summary noted that, “All of us agreed that climate change is happening now, that human activity is contributing to it, and that it could affect every part of the globe.”
Clearly, G8 asked for IPCC to be formed, then relied on IPCC reports to further develop the shared policy of the Group of Eight nations.
At what stage of the interaction between G8 and IPCC did Boulton get involved ?
Did Boulton use IPCC reports to influence the policy of the UK and other G8 nations ?
If his reliance upon IPCC reports was misguided, wouldn’t he have some egg on his face [and his CV…]
Isn’t that a conflict of interest ?
Will I stop asking rhetorical questions ?
Boulton apparently allowed the claim to be lifted from his CV when receiving this award in October 2008.
http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/news08/pm281027-1boul.html
“G8 Intergovernmental Panel on climate change” Notice the repeated lower case Cs.
It goes on to say “…which received Kirk Bryan Medal…” referring to the supposed G8 panel. I would guess that’s an error in translation because that award was conferred on Boulton in ’76.
Steve: Nach dem Promotion wechselte er 1968 zur School of Environmental Sciences der University of East Anglia in Norwich, zunächst als Lecturer, später als Reader, 1986 wurde er zum Regius Professor of Geology der University of Edinburgh ernannt. …
Geoffrey Boulton wirkte im „G8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change“, erhielt die Kirk Bryan Medal der Geological Society of America, …
My German is very rusty, but I pulled out my Langensheidt’s…
“After he received his doctorate, he moved [wechselte = changed] in 1968 to the School of Environmental Sciences at the U. of E. Anglia in Norwich, initially as a lecturer, later as a professor. He was appointed as the Regius Professor of Geology of the University of Edinburgh in 1986. …
G. Boulton worked on the G8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, received the Kirk Bryan Medal of the Geo. Society of America, is the recipient of the Seligman Crystals of the International Glaciological Society (2002), …[it’s a list of Boulton’s accomplishments]”
Earlier in the linked article it’s talking about how Boulton is one of three scientists receiving an honorary doctorate [‘Ehrendoktor’]:
“..die Würde eines Ehrendoktors an „einen der bedeutendsten und einflussreichsten Geowissenschaftler unserer Generation“, Prof. Dr. Geoffrey Boulton.”
– the honor of an honorary doctorate to one of the most important and most influential geoscientists of our generation, prof. G. Boulton.
“Wir sind heute zusammengekommen, um einen der bedeutendsten und einflussreichsten Geowissenschaftler unserer Generation zu ehren“, so Schöler. Geoffrey Boultons wissenschaftliches Werk beschäftige sich vor allem mit der Stabilität und dem Verhalten großer Eisschilde bei klimatischen Veränderungen. Mit seinen grundlegenden Untersuchungen habe er zu einem tieferen Verständnis des Paläoklimas während der letzten Eiszeiten beigetragen, gleichzeitig werde aber auch ein Fenster eröffnet für eine Prognose der zukünftigen Entwicklung der glazialen Bedeckung in verschiedenen Gegenden der Erde.”
– We have come together today in order to honor one of the most important and most influential geoscientists of our generation, a real academic. G. Boulton’s scientific work keeps him completely occupied with the stability and reaction of large ice shields to climate change. With his groundbreaking research, he has enabled a more profound understanding of paleoclimate during the last ice age, but, at the same time, a window was also opened for a prognosis of future understanding of the extent of glaciation in different parts of the Earth.
I agree with MinB above that this does not exactly say that he was a member of the IPCC (all caps). It may just mean that he was a member of some intergovernmental panel or other that discussed climate change.
But if there’s confusion, it’s Boulton’s fault, not this or any other blog’s. It sounds to me like he was deliberately trying to create the impression that he was affiliated with the IPCC, even if he was not.
He wrote “G8” Groups and Panels. Why would we assume ‘UN’, and why would we assume he meant “some intergovernmental panel or other” ?
The safest assumption is that he meant the G8, which is a real group of governments, which has been talking about climate change since before the G8 called for the UN’s IPCC to come into existence. Unlike the UN, or IPCC, the G8 nations actually have economic and geopolitical power.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8
It’s ambiguous whether “G8” should apply just to “Preparatory Groups,” or also to “Intergovenmental Panels on climate change”.
Also, the odd plural could, for example, mean that he served on more than one IPCC, eg IPCC3 and IPCC4.
Boulton could easily clarify this by stating exactly which “Intergovernmental Panels” he meant.
Even if this was the IPCC, I don’t see that this would disqualify him from an investigation of CRUgate per se. But since Muir Russell is now assuring us that he was not associated with the IPCC, it would be appropriate to straighten out this seeming inconsistency.
” Calculations by glaciologists now suggest that by 2050 most of the Himalayan glaciers will have gone”
An interesting quote from a lecture given by Geoffrey Boulton to the Glasgow Centre for Population Health in Jan 2008, the text (.pdf file)of which is here:
http://www.gcph.co.uk/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,385/
The general drift of the lecture suggests that he is not unbiased.
His U Edinborough webpage indicates:
It’s nice to see that there’s a real expert on “the future evolution of glacier cover in the Himalayas” standing up for something approximating the IPCC’s 2035 figure. 😉 At least he’s pushing it back 15 years, instead of pushing it up to 2030 as NASA’s website did.
Not to mention the parsing of “Intergovernmental Panels on climate change” vs “Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change”.
One really shouldn’t have to work that hard at deciphering simple declarative sentences. Did, perhaps, the G8 have their own intergovernmental panel on climate change (which would be a third form of the phrase –ah, those caps!) that wasn’t *the* IPCC? Or other “ipcc” that aren’t “IPCC” he might have contributed to?
Oy vey.
If you look back at the press launch of the inquiry, you will find that Prof Boulton stated he’d been at UEA fulltime until 1980 and then part time at UEA from 1980 to 1986 and part time at Amsterdam until 1986.
Steve: I agree with the follow-up commenters that Boulton told the press conference only that he’d been at UEA until 1980, not 1986, underlining this with the 30 year comment. The 1980 versus 1986 discrepancy is odd. His press conference comment was misrepresented in the Inquiry webpage – this time providing an accurate statement but only after the discrepancy had been publicized on the blogs.)
Can you direct us to the this. The only reference I’ve found is at at 4.24 where his last 6 years at UEA are omitted.
If you look in Debretts (accesible online) you will find the following:
lectr then reader Sch of Environmental Science UEA 1968-86, prof Univ of Amsterdam 1980-86; Univ of Edinburgh: regius prof of geology and mineralogy 1986-2008
He was part-time at UEA and Amsterdam from 1980 until 1986 then moved to Edinburgh.
We are now noting that his disclosure at the briefing was partial and misleading and that the CCE Review website subsequently posted an account of the briefing, purportedly quoting Prof Boulton, which was misleading as to the disclosure he had in fact made at the briefing.
Our concern is that Prof Bolton should make a full and candid disclosure of his professional and personal relationships with Phil Jones, and other persons mentioned in the emails under investigation, sufficient to enable to enable a fair minded and informed person to make a judgement as to whether there is a suspicion of bias. At that point, Muir and Boulton should be given a period to reflect on whether it is appropriate for Boulton to serve on the Review.
To present, the conduct of the Review has not lived up to its promise to be open, transparent and evidenced based. There is still an opportunity to turn things around, we are simply inviting Muir to seize it.
Steve: Just so readers keep the multiple threads straight, this issue was noted a couple of days ago and is not new at this thread.
Re: bobdenton (Feb 18 08:56),
Bobdenton,
Well said. Did you send that to the team?
I’ve sent an elaborated submission to the panel but I suspect they’ll prove responsive only to pressure from MSM.
the http://www.timesonline.co.uk
seems to coming round posting on this debacle, give them a try.
I wonder if Boulton will attend this forthcoming meeting at Edinburgh Uni.
Subject: DATE CHANGE- Open Forum:
Has Our Perception of Climate ScienceChanged?
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:38:01 +0000
From: Dave Bell To: all@lists.geos.ed.ac.uk
Dear Everyone, Due to clashes in timing with the Hutton Club, we have decided to movethe open climate forum back one day, but the location will remain thesame. Please amend your diaries to: _*Thursday 25th February at 4.30pm in the Grant Institute main lecturetheatre*_ As a reminder: Climate science has recently come under fire in the media over stolenemails from the University of East Anglia and questions over aspects ofthe IPCC report. A recent poll has shown a large increase in publicscepticism of the science, likely as a response to these events. Giventhe media hype on these issues and the spotlight on climate scientists,we feel it important to ask as scientists; has this changed outperception of climate science? The forum will begin with introductory talks from IPCC authors GabiHegerl and Mark Rounsevell, followed by an open floor discussion. Beer,wine and cheese will follow at 5.30pm in the Grant Institute’s CockburnMuseum, with a chance for further discussion. Everyone, regardless of research group, is welcome to attend. This isset up as a school wide event.Apologies for any inconvenience caused by the change of date.
Kindest Regards,Dave Bell & Matt Unterman (Oceans and Climate Group)
The Russell Review website now has an FAQ ‘clarification/rebuttal’ of the IPcc reference in his 2007 biography – without explaining what the reference means of why it was there:
“Some of the blogs are saying that Professor Geoffrey Boulton is connected to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – is this true?
No, it is not true. Professor Boulton has had no formal contact with the IPCC. He has not been a member of the Panel or made any submissions to it.”
Steve: Cameron, the original Muir Russell criteria were: “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the University or the Climate Science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.” They’re moving the goalposts regularly – Boulton has “links” to the Climate Science community – “links” is now redefined to “making submissions” to the IPCC – which doesn’t, to my knowledge, receive “submissions” in any event.
And the link: http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php
It now says:
“A purported CV of Professor Boulton in circulation contains a line claiming he has contributed submissions to the IPCC. This is false. He has not, and his name does not appear on any IPCC contributor list.”
It’s a purported CV you see – not his real CV.
I wonder which malicious person has been posting this purported CV on the internet.
Are they saying that Prof Boulton has been posting a purported CV or that someone else has been posting it without his consent?
Are there any other falsehoods contained in this purported CV we should know about?
Boulton is now denying that the sentence quoted has ever appeared in any of his CVs.
See Channel 4 News
It’s really a tempest in a teacup. My concern is with his past associations at UEA and his strong opinions on AGW.
Steve: I agree that there are multiple issues involving Boulton’s suitability to participate in this inquiry – but this CV thing is very strange. Boulton’s insinuations that the CV was recently doctored are outrageous.
One Trackback
[…] Hier, j'ai signalé que Boulton 2007 CV sont les suivantes: 9. CONTRIBUTIONS AUX SCIENCES ET POLITIQUE DE RECHERCHE … En tant que contributeur au G8 groupes préparatoires et des groupes intergouvernemental sur les changements climatiques Ce matin, l'infortuné Muir Russell enquête ajouté ce qui suit à leur FAQ: Certains des blogs disant que le professeur Geoffrey Boulton est relié à la [. . . ] URL article original: https://climateaudit.org/2010/02/17/boultons-changing-story/ […]