The Boulton Bio Watch

Question – when will the Inquiry come clean on their webpage about Boulton’s UEA links?

Boulton’s Inquiry bio doesn’t mention that he had been employed at UEA from 1968 to 1986. At the Inquiry press conference on Feb 11, Boulton admitted being employed at UEA until 1980:

I should also add something that ought to be in my CV but is not – that I was appointed to a full-time post in the new school of environmental science at UEA at 1968 and worked there until 1980 which if you calculate correctly is 30 years ago.

While the Inquiry website responded within 24 hours to repudiate the idea that Boulton was linked to IPCC (without confronting the fact that the blogs merely reported Boulton’s own CV), despite Boulton’s own admission that his past association with East Anglia “ought” to be in his CV, his Inquiry website bio remains unamended.

What’s the over/under on when it will be amended?

And what about the years between 1980 and 1986? Boulton admitted to the press conference that he worked at East Anglia until 1980. He then condescendingly told the reporters:

which if you calculate correctly is 30 years ago.

Well, it now turns out that he worked at East Anglia until 1986, with his contemporary academic publications stating his affiliation as “University of East Anglia”?

Why would he say that he only worked until 1980 when he worked until 1986? And why would he underline that this was 30 years ago, when nobody at the press conference would have cared one way or another about whether he left in 1980 or 1986?

The next questions that need to be asked are –

did you meet Phil Jones during your employment at East Anglia? how many times did you meet Phil Jones? Under what circumstances did you meet Phil Jones? what did you talk about? Have you met Phil Jones since you left the university? Where did you meet? What did you talk about?

did you meet Tom Wigley during your employment at East Anglia? how many times did you meet Tom Wigley? Under what circumstances did you meet Tom Wigley? what did you talk about? Have you met Tom Wigley since you left the university? Where did you meet? What did you talk about?

did you meet Ben Santer during your employment at East Anglia? how many times did you meet Ben Santer? Under what circumstances did you meet Ben Santer? what did you talk about? Have you met Ben Santersince you left the university? Where did you meet? What did you talk about?

Any competent lawyer would have many more questions to ask Boulton.


  1. daveinphilly
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 9:38 AM | Permalink

    Hello, I was in a internet forum and was challenged by a AGW proponent to cite a damaging EastAnglia email. I picked one at random and found the following 3 emails and was wondering if I was correct in my assumptions.…1178107838.txt

    I have questions..

    First one by “Ben Santer” says…

    “”So I suspect, based on S/N arguments, that it’s better to search for an
    anthropogenic surface temperature signal over the oceans rather than the
    land. Actually showing this might be useful.””

    I’m concerned that he is TRYING to find some proof of AGW instead of letting the data speak for itself in an unbiased way. Is there bias here? S/N means “signal to noise”?

    Next one…..

    Phil Jones talking about infilled databases. Is that data extrapolation?

    “All infilling has the problem that when there is little data it tends to revert to the 1961-90 average of zero….The infilling is partly the reason they got 2005 so warm, by extrapolating across the Arctic from the coastal stations.”

    Uh-oh. It is extrapolation. They took temperature readings only from the coast and said it was that way all across the Arctic? Huh? That doesn’t sound good.

    More Phil Jones…”In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the 61-90 average for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value.”

    I don’t know what the “61-90 average” means, but excluding some Sea Surface Temps SST is cause for concern? Yes/No?

    Santer again…”With some help from Peter, I managed to obtain some preliminary results for the detection of an anthropogenic fingerprint in observed SST data. “”

    Trying AGAIN to find proof of AGW in water temperatures (SST)?

    Santer again…”This means that, if we had begun monitoring observed SST changes in 1950, we would have been able to identify an anthropogenic fingerprint roughly 30 years later.””

    He seems to be looking VERY hard for evidence of AGW? Is this preconceived bias?

    And the MONEY QUOTE…Santer again..”and that in the “mean removed” case, we might have more luck detecting an “ANTHRO” fingerprint if go to full space-time optimal detection.””

    “LUCK” detecting an anthro fingerprint”? He’s hoping for LUCK? What the heck is that!! Is he going into this study trying to get a pre-determined outcome and ignoring all opposing evidence?
    Please help. Thanks

  2. justbeau
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    About a month ago, Steve expressed a modest hope that some of the examinations (such as UEA or Penn State) at least as a superficial gesture of seriousness refrain from saying things that are easily refutable. This seems a trivial expectation. Yet even this hope, trifling though it is, seems doomed to disappointment in the case of Professor Boulton.

  3. justbeau
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

    Some of the patently false or misleading claims about Boulton must be of his own authorship. They seem self-inflicted wounds to his own credibility. He seems unable to communicate even a superficially credible narrative about himself.
    Perhaps this is indicative of over-confidence to which Team-members are accustomed. They are used to their statements being generously accepted by uncritical followers. Snugly used to this fantasy world, Boulton can now offer patently absurd denials of involvement with IPCC and climate change and somehow in his own mind must expect them to be believed. Very odd.

  4. Dr Iain McQueen
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 10:46 AM | Permalink

    G Boulton is clearly a powerful bulldozer, and has a big engine on board in the shape of UK Government connections, as we see from the Xiamen CV. The team under his guidance, rubber stamped by the Hapless One, will simply brazen out this series of deceptions by omission, half truths and downright terminological inexactitudes.
    The corrections to his CV and admissions of IPCC associations will be quietly published after the enquiry team pronounces, just to tidy up eventually, with a lame story of being too hectic at the time. Sir Humphrey stuff.
    There is just a chance that a decent journalist will go to print and point out to the public that there are several reasons to doubt the detachment and integrity of this Club.
    Odds on a timely correction in the next 24hrs? 100 : 1 against.

    • justbeau
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

      Boulton’s tactics are unlikely to turn out well, because his contexts are changing rapidly. The mainstream press is finally waking up to and acknowledging some of the nonsense. Many reporters may not understand arcane nuances about climate or scientific method, but they do understand misrepresentation.
      UEA has been in the news for questionable science. Phil Jones has handsomely admitted he may have misplaced some data and that there is much more doubt than claimed by the IPCC. Given all the attention to UEA, it seems especially unwise right now and at this place for Boulton to spin a bunch of superficially absurd fictions about his resume.

  5. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    And why would he underline that this was 30 years ago

    Well, don’t they say it takes 30 years to establish a climateA? So he wanted to establish that he is now in a new climate mode where it doesn’t matter that he once worked where CRU is located.

  6. Bob Koss
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    UEA announced the formation of the panel on December 3. On December 10 Boulton endorsed the IPCC view on climate change by putting his name to this statement.
    Met Office

    I just put this in an older thread that already scrolled off the front page. Figured I’d put it here also. Delete if it’s already known.

  7. ZT
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    30 years ago would be selected to avoid overlap with Phil Jones.

    Looks like someone else is going to need to invoke the “bumbling professor defense”.

  8. Jimchip
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    This even reminds me of the IPCC glacier-guide boot cleaning issue. I suggest that the committee review the proper signage so they can post one on their meeting room door(s). They may wish a more academic approach:

    It may be that they were confused with respect to a BIO-Containment Level III structure and a BIO-Containment Level IV structure. Briefly, under III nothing gets in. Under IV, nothing gets out. They went with III and they shoulda gone to IV from the getgo.

  9. Larry
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

    You can almost hear the wheels spinning as the political establishment desperately tries to get traction. As an engineer you never lie about work related proofs – even if it shows you did a lot of damage because you cannot regain your reputation. They appear to be trying to use the reputation of eminient scientists to give them traction without ever responding to the scientific criticisms. That may wash with the general public, but it can hardly wash with anybody with a scientific background who has understood the criticisms. These scientist’s reputations rest on the scientific community. I am starting to give the same weight to pronouncements of the Royal Society as I would to Greenpeace. Is the Royal Society really prepared to commit suicide over this? They have no function in society without scientific credibility. The criticisms are specific and need to be addressed at length and in detail.

    • Tim
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

      Many of these guys do not believe that the reputations are at risk because they spend all of their time talking to one another in their echo chambers. They probably believe that this will blow over and the media will get bored and find some other bone to chew on.

      • ianl8888
        Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

        History is on their side

  10. Fred
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    So I am thinking Sir Muir really, really, really doesn’t understand how that interwebnet thingy works and he figures he can just carry on the old fashioned “business as usual” establishment model.

  11. Curt Fischer
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    I think Steve has raised some very valid points about the independence of Boulton but the fact that he worked at UEA is not one of them.

    1. Boulton himself noted this at an early press conference.

    2. He hasn’t worked there in more than 20 years.

    3. Even when he did work there he was not part of the Climate Research Unit.

    Contrary to what people on other threads have claimed, a university’s own faculty are constantly called on to conduct independent investigations into the conduct of other members of the university. Here is one example; here is another.

    I suppose you can argue that “appearances matter”, and that the choice of Boulton creates the appearance of impropriety. But it doesn’t appear that way to everyone. And appearances are not enough to justify calling Boulton’s claim that he has no link to the CRU “a fib”.

    • Dr. Ross Taylor
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

      Curt, you say “Contrary to what people on other threads have claimed, a university’s own faculty are constantly called on to conduct independent investigations into the conduct of other members of the university. Here is one example; here is another.”

      I agree, although I question your use of the word “independent”- neither of the examples you cite claim to be “independent” investigations (unless I have missed something)- they are quite clearly internal inquiries into various forms of misconduct, far more similar to the Penn State inquiry than the UEA inquiry.

      The point here is that the UEA inquiry is not an internal inquiry, but is advertising itself as an independent inquiry, i.e. “The Review was called for and is being funded by the University of East Anglia, but its work and findings are wholly independent.” (I quote from their own website).

      I also respectfully disagree that appearance of bias is not relevant. No-one can actually read a man or woman’s mind. it is a well established legal principle that appearance of bias is sufficient to disqualify a tribunal in the UK, on the basis that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

      • Curt Fischer
        Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

        I appreciate the response, Dr. Ross. I suppose there are no hard answers as to what consitutes an “independent” inquiry. In my mind an employment that ended more than 20 years ago does not, by itself, necessarily compromise independence. For example I would feel independent enough to investigate companies I briefly worked for 11 years ago, as long as no personnel I interacted directly with were subjects of the investigation.

        Secondly, I was not trying to say that the appearance of bias is irrelevant. My intended points were much narrower: first, even if there is an appearance of bias it does not justify using the word “fib”, and second, this particular issue is not even the strongest possible argument against Boulton being a legitimate member of the investigation. Others Steve has raised seem more important and yet seem to be receiving less focus.

        • Ausie Dan
          Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 12:48 AM | Permalink

          perhaps speakimh at meetings very recently in support to AGW is more relevant.

        • Snufflegruff
          Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

          I disagree. I investigate complaints for a living in a government-related context. If there is the slightest possibility that I may be conflicted, either because i know somebody involved, directly or through reputation, or it involves one of my former areas of work, or (as in one instance) could be linked obliquely to my out-of-work life, I declare that and ask for the work to be reassigned. That way I’m clean and my organisation is clean. I’m quite clear in my own mind about what impartiality and independence mean. I’m afraid Dr Boulton is as conflicted as they come.

    • PaulM
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

      Curt, sorry, but your comments are quite ridiculous. Neither of the cases you link to claim to be independent inquiries, they are just internal university investigations. The fact that he worked at UEA is very relevant. you don’t seem to understand the concept of Conflict of Interest – and nor does Boulton. Look it up. How you would feel about it is irrelevant. He can’t get round it by claiming to be objective. It’s a question of public perception – what would a reasonable member of the public think about a person who had spent 18 years at UEA investigating the UEA emails?

      • Curt Fischer
        Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

        I don’t believe my comments are ridiculous, and I don’t really think you are sorry.

        If, as you say, the conflicts of interest issue is a matter of “public perception”, then how I feel is just as relevant as how you feel, because we are both members of the public.

        But I gather you also believe that the issue is not just a matter of “public perception”, because you advised me to “look it up”. I’m happy to. But where? Where are the applicable guidelines on conflicts of interest here?

        • curious
          Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 7:59 PM | Permalink

          Try Googling “Conflict of interests definition”

        • Curt Fischer
          Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

          Wikipedia says: “More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.”

          I don’t see how Boulton’s prior connections to UEA would qualify as a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia’s definition.

        • WillR
          Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 1:35 AM | Permalink

          Re: Curt Fischer (Feb 17 20:32),

          This is more appropriate

          Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter for example when an individual tries (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit. A director or executive of a corporation will be subject to legal liability if a conflict of interest breaches his Duty of Loyalty.

          As a lawyer pointed out in a previous thread — COI is not an issue take as much conflict as you can handle — add Duty — and you get into the legal issues.

          Hope that helps.

        • curious
          Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 4:19 AM | Permalink

          Last night I got 12,100,000 hits on Google UK. (This morning that is down to 2,680,000). On the first page there are several that are more applicable and relevant than the Wiki quote you provide; some from legal dictionary sites. Try looking through a few more to get a better picture.

          As far as your comment below goes on judges, a key difference is that judges are operating in a court of law where there is testable precedence and they will have a legal training and background. This legal rigour and skill is not present in the Muir Russell Inquiry and Lord Lawson has pointed this out.

          With regard to “no links CRU”, Steve provided a link elsewhere showing G Boulton was a PhD supervisor there.

          Notwithstanding the misrepresentation by the Muir Russell Inquiry there is a clear conflict of interest in Mr Boulton’s appointment which could easily be resolved by the appointment of a neutral candidate.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

      Re: Curt Fischer (Feb 17 12:46),

      Curt, you’re re-framing the issue by omitting (1) the Inquiry’s representation that the members had no links to CRU; (2) Boulton’s curious misrepresentation of when he stopped working at UEA; (3) Boulton’s continuing failure to correct the Inquiry bio.

      Boulton has links to CRU. THe Inquiry shouldn’t have said that he didn’t. Nor should they have omitted this highly relevant part of his CV from his inquiry bio. And when the matter was raised, they should have amended his Inquiry bio promptly. And why did Boulton say that he ended his employment in 1980 rather than the true date of 1986? And underline if with the 30 years comment.

      IT seems to me that there is a distinct possibility that Boulton knows Wigley, Jones and/or Santer. No one’s asked him yet. Someone will ask Intergovernmental Panel on climate change contributor Boulton whether he does.

      • Curt Fischer
        Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

        Steve, thanks for the reply. I agree issues (2) and (3) are serious. But they are issues of misrepresentation that go to Boulton’s credibility generally. They seem, to me, mostly unrelated to any possible conflicts of interest Boulton might have stemming from his prior time at UEA.

        On issue 1, my point all along is that you have been doing the reframing because the claim never was that Boulton had no links to UEA, just that he had no links to CRU.

        The more evidence comes out, the more it is seeming like Boulton had some links to CRU. To me, they seem like minor links, such as helping to supervise a CRU-associated student’s thesis. But these facts emerged after many commenters here had claimed proof of a CRU link. Just saying that he worked at UEA, like early commenters on your past posts this week did, aren’t evidence of a significant link to CRU. With the facts now emerging, I suppose there are links, and you are correct to say that the committee shouldn’t have said there aren’t any. Perhaps if they’d said “no significant links” it would’ve been for the better.

        I know in the eyes of many here any link is a significant link, but that just isn’t so. Here’s an interesting post by a top legal scholar on the issue of when judges should recuse themselves from a case. I hope we can agree that the standards for judges recusing themselves should be, if anything, even higher than standards for investigators in the CRU inquiry because the stakes (e.g. imprisonment) can be much higher. Many of the “links” between a judge and litigants or defendants which do NOT necessitate a judge recusing himself are “stronger” than the links between Boulton and CRU.

        • Tim
          Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 1:07 AM | Permalink


          Do you have some legal textbook that defines the word ‘link’ in the way you are using it?

          Because according to my definition of the word working in the environmental studies department at UEA counts as a link to CRU. I also think most other people use my definition too.

        • bobdenton
          Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 1:48 AM | Permalink

          UK inquiry, UK rules.

          In the Pinochet affair, the House of Lords Judicial Committee reheard the head of state immunity case because one Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Hoffman, had been a director of a charitable satellite of Amnesty International, which held an amicus brief.

          The test was whether such links gave rise to a reasonable apprehension or suspicion on the part of a fair minded and informed member of the public that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased.

          It’s instructive to compare how Hoffmans connection to AI was at first concealed, then drip leaked out with the way Boulton’s connection with Tom Wigley, Phil Jones and others was first concealed and is now being drip leaked out.

    • Ausie Dan
      Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 12:49 AM | Permalink


  12. Peter Whale
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    HI you have probably seen this but just in case.
    Signed by proffesor Geofry Boulton


    Statement From The UK Science Community
    Submitted by editor on December 15, 2009 – 03:00

    We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that Warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

    Prof Julia Slingo

    Met Office

    • Bernie
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

      1700 academics and graduate student signed the above statement.

  13. Bernie
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    I found this portion of a presentation.,1,Slide 1
    Given the recent disputes over the rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers, it struck me as topical. Unfortunately I cannot seem to find a more complete copy of the presentation. It makes some bold statements that may or may not be supported by other information.

  14. Bernie
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    Apparently Prof. Boulton’s list of publications is no longer accessible on the University of Edinburgh site.

  15. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    While he was at UEA, Boulton supervised a PhD thesis at CRU:

  16. Thomas H
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

    Geoffrey Boulton interview from a United Arab Emirates paper titled “UAE warning: Climate change effects” 28 Feb. 2008

    “…Professor Geoffrey Boulton, a British geologist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
    I have no clue how that connection is made. Nice picture and caption.

    Some back story to the UAE connection. (2005)

    But this is apparently a fairly old quote in a recent story (Jan 21 2009).

    • mpaul
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

      Nice find. The picture and the caption are priceless.

      The reality is that Boulton seems not to have played much of a role in the IPCC at all. But I guess putting it in his CV might have convenient for a time, even if it wasn’t true. Now that its inconvenient, he takes it out.

      RC would call this a vindication of the scientific process. You see, once it was pointed out that it wasn’t true, he issued a corrected version.

    • TerryMN
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 7:03 PM | Permalink

      Thomas H: Precious first link, thanks. I’m trying to find an e-mail for the reporter to figure out why on earth he would have associated Boulton with the IPCC, and why he hasn’t refuted the contents of the article for over two years…

  17. jim edwards
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    In a 1985 paper published in the Journal of Geological Society of London, Boulton claimed an affiliation to BOTH UEA and U. of Amsterdam.

    • KT
      Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

      He worked part time at UEA and Amsterdam from 1980 to 1986.

  18. hotandcoldEV
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    Same guy – just google a bit harder: try “Williams, L.D.” and “School of Environmental Sciences”. (Or Larry Williams.)

    I’m not sure what this really amounts to – in the late 70s/early 80s someone at UEA who was either supervised by Boulton or at least whom he signed off as their supervisor, wrote papers with other people at UEA including at the CRU.


    QUATERNARY RESEARCH 20, 286-307 (1983)

    “A Comparison of Evidence for Late Holocene Summer Temperature Variations in the Northern Hemisphere”

    *School of Environmental Sciences and **Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences,
    University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom


    Artic and Alpine Research, 11.4, 1979, 443-456

    “An energy balance model of potential glacierization of Norther Canada”

    Larry D. WILLIAMS*

    School of Environmental Sciences, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ,

    *Present address c/o Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado


    Williams, L. D., Wigley, T. M. L. & Kelly, P. M. I980 In Sun and climate, pp. 11-20. Toulouse: Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales.


    also single author papers in, eg, (1975) (address Univ of Colorado, Boulder) and
    Quaternary Research, Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 141-278 (September 1978) (address at UEA)

    • Jimchip
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

      Re: hotandcoldEV (Feb 17 15:08),

      meh, it might not mean anything. Maybe papa bear wants to protect a cub?

      “Same guy – just google a bit harder: try “Williams, L.D.” and “School of Environmental Sciences”. (Or Larry Williams.)” Ya, but I saw some papers from ’72 and Williams, L.D. Investigation of the onset of glaciation in northern Canada using an energy balance snow model 1978 Boulton Dr. G., so it seemed there might be a more senior LDW.

      • hotandcoldEV
        Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

        prima facie it looks like somebody who started off as a grad student at Boulder then moved to UEA for ~3 years and finished their PhD there, while obviously keeping contacts and left the field a few of years? after graduating (their doctorate).

        Hard to tell at this distance. I doubt CRU was really large enough to not be having combined seminars with SES in the period up to 86, but as it’s pre-webtime we’ll probably never know.

        • Larry Irwin
          Posted Jun 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

          Larry D Williams was a personal friend of mine from our undergraduate days at U. of Colorado in Boulder where he was a student in both Math and Geology/Geography. He worked as a programmer and later a researcher at the Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research affiliated with the University and NCAR. He did climate modeling computer programs that were some of the earliest used by NCAR. While working there,he met and later married Jill Williams who was finishing her PhD at the university and interning at NCAR. When she returned to East Anglia to teach Larry went along and finished a Doctorate there. Jill and Larry Separated and she continued her work in Vienna and later in Germany. He moved to Edinburgh Scotland where he was a researche and programmer at the University. He passed away in October of 2010 at the age of 76 or possibly 77.

      • Jimchip
        Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

        Re: Jimchip (Feb 17 15:45),

        Pure speculation but he coulda’ been told by a mentor to go with Boulton once he defined his interests enough to see that Boulder wasn’t a good fit at the time. Larry D. Williams isn’t that uncommon a name so it was difficult for me to even be sure about the Ray. B, Tom W. connection. Small programs, small niche areas– Not unusual for them to collaborate.

  19. hotandcoldEV
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM | Permalink

    Title: “The reconstruction of former ice sheets and their mass balance characteristics using a non-lineary viscous flow model”

    Author(s): BOULTON G. S. (1) ; SMITH G. D. ; MORLAND L. W. ;
    Author(s) Affiliation(s): (1) Univ. East Anglia school environmental sci., Norwich NR4 7TJ,

    Journal Title: Journal of Glaciology
    Source: 1984, vol. 30, no105, pp. 140-152

  20. hotandcoldEV
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    Last one: 1986 glaciology paper from Boulton. Affiliation UEA, no mention of Amsterdam.

    Title: Isotopic fractionation at the base of polar and sub-polar glaciers
    Author(s): BOULTON G. S. (1)
    Author(s) Affiliation(s): (1) Univ. East Anglia, school environmental sci., Norwich NR4 7TJ,
    Journal Title: Journal of Glaciology
    Source: 1986, vol. 32, no112, pp. 475-485 (21 ref.)

  21. SBD
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM | Permalink

    Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
    January 23, 1980, Wednesday, Midwestern Edition
    SECTION: Science; Research Notebook; Pg. 16
    LENGTH: 473 words
    HEADLINE: CO[2]: more climatic warnings
    BYLINE: By Robert C. Cowen

    There now seems little doubt that energy planners have to take the carbon dioxide threat seriously. Recent studies show concern over possible climatic warming to be soundly based.

    They also suggest that even a slight warming — say less than 1 degree C. — could be hard on US and Soviet grain lands. Atmospheric scientists have wondered for some time whether or not increased burning of fossil fuels could load the air with enough heat-trapping CO[2] to raise global average temperature several degrees over the next century. Early
    this winter, a (US) National Academy of Sciences study group reported it had taken a hard look at the assumptions and uncertainties that underlie this concern and can find no fault with them.

    In a study reported about the same time, Syukuro Manabe and Ronald J. Stouffer of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration simulated CO[2] warming with a computer model. This showed that doubling the air’s CO[2], content (which could easily happen over the next 50 to 75 years) could reasonably be expected to bring a 2-degree warming — a finding typical for such studies.

    Meanwhile, Douglas V. Hoyt of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Boulder, Colo., has tried to find out how much CO[2] warming we have already had. Removing what he takes to be sun-related temperature trends from data for the period 1880-1970, he finds a residual warming of around 0.4 degrees that could well be due to CO[2]. It’s an uncertain conclusion. Yet Hoyt says it supports estimates that doubling atmospheric
    CO[2] could warm Earth by 2 to 3 degrees. also, if the present CO[2] trend continues, a further 0.4 degree warming over the next 20 years is indicated.

    Such small warmings could imply substantial climatic changes. To try to get a feeling for this, T. M. L. Wigley, P. D. Jones, and P. M. Kelly of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia have compared the five warmest years with the five coldest during the period 1925- 1974. Reporting their study in Nature in January, they
    explain it is only a rough guide. Comparing two five year groups is not the same as comparing two climatic epochs.

    Nevertheless, it does call attention to possible types of change. In particular, a warming of as little as 0.6 degrees implies such striking features as increased rainfall over india and increased dryness for the central and southeastern United States and much of Europe and the Soviet Union. Such changes, the scientists note, “could have considerable impact on agriculture.”

    These recent studies don’t prove that heavily increased use of coal would ruin the climate. But they do emphasize that scientific uncertainties can no longer be an excuse for ignoring this possible limit on coal power in energy planning.

  22. Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM | Permalink

    I love you guys.

    • ML
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

      There is no time for love LOL.
      Just keep working on the second instlament of your book. |: 😐 ( two thumbs up ) 8>)

  23. Craigo
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    Steve – given past form, do you expect anything less than inaccuracies and contorted conclusions from CRU. Think of 1986 to 2010 as a “short” 30 years and it is statistically insignificant!!

    We will have to wait for the whitewash (or should that be greenwash) to dry before we can really call it. Let them hoist their own petard.

  24. DaveS
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    For general information: if you send an email to Kate Moffat, the contact given on the Review’s website, you’ll now get an ‘out of office until 24 Feb’ message, so don’t expect a quick response. She could have quite an inbox awaiting her return…

  25. EdeF
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 7:31 PM | Permalink

    I seem to remember where I was attending school in 1968.

  26. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 8:20 PM | Permalink

    Bishop Hill spots Muir Russell’s statement of Dec 5,2009 as follows:
    Sir Muir said: “Given the nature of the allegations, it is right 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.”

    • philh
      Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 9:18 PM | Permalink

      I thought you were going to put the Bishop on your blog roll.

      Steve: Done.

  27. pat
    Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 9:52 PM | Permalink

    steve, have u seen this; horner has received the documents he requested:

    Chris Horner: Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One)
    In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)..
    I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century..ETC—-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-—-part-one/?singlepage=true

  28. Posted Feb 17, 2010 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    If Boulton corrects his bio, he might then be seen as changing his story. He might go for it, as anything is better than being accused of misrepresentation. But then he’ll be confirming the suspicion that he was misrepresenting all along.

    Boulton should start to feel that the matter is getting legal.

  29. ZT
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 12:46 AM | Permalink

    Jones and Boulton clearly overlapped at the CRU.

    Here we see that Boulton supervised LD Williams’ thesis, which is dated 1978:

    ‘Williams, L.D. Investigation of the onset of glaciation in northern Canada using an energy balance snow model 1978 Boulton Dr. G.’
    (the last string is the supervisor)

    Here we see Jones’ publications which clearly indicate that he was active at the CRU in 1978:

    Morth, H.T. and Jones, P.D., 1978
    “A new approach to indexing the circumpolar wind (II).”
    Climate Monitor 7(2), 54-62 Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
    (keywords: methodology wind)

    Hence, Boulton is not independent of the CRU, or Jones, and should resign from the I-Team.

  30. WillR
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 1:45 AM | Permalink

    I think it would be worthwhile to read the following…

    Fiduciary Duty

    … and Conflict Of Interest

    I guess the major question is simply “Where is the duty owed”.

    I say he owes the duty to UEA and financiers of the Inquiry.

    If he finds Jones et all guity of improprieties then UEA/CRU looks bad as well.

    Does that make sense?

  31. Acton Now
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 1:51 AM | Permalink

    Let’s dust the bios and run with the legend…

    Geoffrey Boulton: the Man, the Legend

    Description: Common meeting place for disciples of Geology/Geoscience nature, more specifically, those who were enthralled by the geology maestro that is Professor Geoffrey Boulton OBE.

  32. Ausie Dan
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM | Permalink

    Boulton “forgot” that he had worked at UEA and “forgot” that he had been claiming IPCC connections.
    He must have been very keen to get on the committee and must have been worried that these connections would disbar him.
    Why was he so keen?

  33. Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

    Where is Wegman in all this, the man who brilliantly first showed the strength of the social network of the Hockey Team?

  34. Owl307
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 6:07 AM | Permalink

    On the review website, this page:

    now says:

    Professor Boulton said:

    “At the Review press conference (on February 11), I pointed out that I had worked full-time in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA from its inception in 1968 to 1980, and that I had a part-time appointment between 1980 and 1986, whilst working primarily in the University of Amsterdam. Since then, I have had no professional contact with the University of East Anglia or the Climatic Research Unit….

    But I didn’t hear that 80-86 bit on the recording linked on their home page.

    Steve: we reported this a couple of days ago.

    • bobdenton
      Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 6:43 AM | Permalink

      Boulton’s memory is at fault, At 4.24 he says he’s owning up to something which should have been in his CV but wasn’t but admits only to working at UEA until 1980 and then points out that was 30 years ago. Muir thanks him (ironically?) for owning up to 30 years.

  35. Dominic
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 6:18 AM | Permalink

    I have emailed the inquiry to complain about Boulton’s lack of independence. I suggest others do the same if only to show Sir Muir Russell that we are not one or two cranks from the other side of the world (you know what I mean) but include many well qualified professionals who vote and who pay British taxes and who should not be ignored. I urge other British citizens to do likewise.

  36. jimchip
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 10:07 AM | Permalink

    Re: Lucy Skywalker (Feb 18 03:41),

    A networking analysis would yield quite an indicator of independence. One could leave out key players like Wegman did and re-analyze. It would be neat to do that with the emails, too…maybe someday. I recently looked at the Wegman Report (and just now). It is concerned with the publications and co-authors but still highly informative. I scanned through the 42 co-authors and the 72 most published in the reconstruction area of climate science…CRU, MBH really stand out, of course. Nobody from most recent CCE discussions that I noticed but they didn’t co-author. Maybe that’s their definition of “independence”.

  37. Brownedoff
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    GSB was still putting UEA down as his address in a Journal published in 1986, link below at bottom line.

    “Products and effects of modern eolian activity on a nineteenth-century glacier ….etc., etc.”

    PA Riezebos, GS Boulton, JJM Van der Meer, … etc.

    Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1986, pp. 389-396

    GSB puts his No. 1 affiliation as Amsterdam and and his No. 2 affiliatiion as School of Environmental Sciences, Universty of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.

    Link is here:

  38. Dr Iain McQueen
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    Re: Brownedoff (Feb 18 11:03),

    Thanks very much for this hunting technique which I didn’t know of. Very Useful!

    • Brownedoff
      Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

      Thank you.

      [RomanM: Inappropriate personal comments]

      Does anyone know the key strokes required to go quickly from the bottom of the page to the top? Since last November some of these threads are getting very long.

      • RomanM
        Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 11:43 AM | Permalink

        “Home” gets you to the top. “End” goes to the bottom in both IE and Firefox.

  39. Bjorn L
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    From The times:

    Sir Muir issued a statement last week claiming that the inquiry members, who are investigating leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, did not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.

    Professor Boulton told The Times: “I may be rapped over the knuckles by Sir Muir for saying this, but I think that statement needs to be clarified. I think the committee needs someone like me who is close to the field of climate change and it would be quite amazing if that person didn’t have a view on one side or the other.”

    • Gordon Walker
      Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

      If this investigation was a jury trial Boulton et al. would be eliminated at the “voir dire” stage where a potential juror is tested for partiality.
      “A party may move for dismissal for cause to remove any potential juror shown to be connected to or biased in the case. A court may sustain counsel’s request to strike a juror for cause, in which case the juror steps aside and another is called. Or a judge may overrule a challenge for cause if a suitable reason has not been sufficiently established. Challenges for cause are not limited in number.”
      I am too lazy to provide a link, but googling “voir dire” will give more information than you could possibly want.
      I do not see why anyone on the panel should have “form” wrt to climate science.
      This area of study is hardly in the same league as, say, relativistic quantum mechanics. After all, the dendros’ claims that a quantitative temperature signal can be extracted from variations in tree ring thicknesses is nothing more than a claim that thickness change corresponds to “change in growing conditions” where temperature is but one of several variables.

      • Dr Iain McQueen
        Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

        Re: Gordon Walker (Feb 18 13:09),
        Gordon W
        “I do not see why anyone on the panel should have “form” wrt to climate science.
        This area of study is hardly in the same league as, say, relativistic quantum mechanics. After all, the dendros’ claims that a quantitative temperature signal can be extracted from variations in tree ring thicknesses is nothing more than a claim that thickness change corresponds to “change in growing conditions” where temperature is but one of several variables.”

        Well, yes, but they do need to know how specious the whole dendro scene may be with regard to temperatures, exactly as you say, and this panel is really about the long term meaningfulness and handling of “scientific” claims, even before they go to press, and their eventual honest transmission to the public and politician.

        I bet Obama doesn’t know that dendro may be almost irrelevant to assessing temperatures. The dendros of course do, but tend not to emphasise this! It could lead to declines! Its that ‘may’ that tends to get concealed.

        What the panel finally pronounces will be noted, and what they pronounce will be influenced by their bias and knowledge.

  40. Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 12:10 PM | Permalink

    Re: Brownedoff (Feb 18 11:03),
    I think some of browned off’s comments need to be deleted by a moderator

    • Dr Iain McQueen
      Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

      Re: PaulM (Feb 18 12:10),
      I rather agree, part of it was very useful to me.

      • Brownedoff
        Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

        I apologise to all those who were offended by my comments.

  41. ZT
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 1:14 PM | Permalink

    Quotes from Janus-faced Geoffrey Boulton, “OBE”, expert on geology, glaciology, and scientific ethics:

    Click to access Ethics_transcripts.pdf

    Boulton says: “However, I am also still a practising scientist, working on issues such as climate change…”

    In contradiction to this I-Team statement “I was equally clear that although my research is not in the field of modern or recent climate change…”

    And in this ‘ethics’ piece Boulton says:
    “Arguably, the scientist should be Janus-faced, facing in two directions, with two sets of ethical responsibilities. The first would be towards his or her profession – a direction that is well-established and generally well-understood by all in the profession and ideally by the public too. The ethic includes, for example, as Baroness O’Neill has said, acting with skill, honesty and care, not committing plagiarism and declaring conflicts of interest.

    The second direction of gaze is much more difficult: it is the question of a
    scientist’s responsibility to society. The central issue here is whether discussions of the assumptions and uncertainties of scientific work should take place behind closed doors with professional peers or within a company or a governmental department, with a public statement merely presenting a conclusion that hides any underlying equivocations. Such processes are often hidden behind statements such as ‘the science suggests that this should be
    done’, or ‘that should be done’. In practice, however, the science is often
    wrapped up in unstated values of which we scientists ourselves are sometimes
    not aware.”

    “Janus-faced” suddenly means taking care of the profession _and_ society.

    (And I thought Janus-faced meant being deceptive or hypocritical – silly me!)

  42. Richard Henry Lee
    Posted Feb 18, 2010 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

    The FAQ page for the Inquiry addresses the FOIA as it relates to the Inquiry itself.
    It states that “The aim will be to publish all material quickly. We will follow the principles of FOI. Our scheme is that all submissions relevant to our remit will be published as soon as practicable on the Website. All other material, including records of meetings and correspondence, will be published by the conclusion of the Review.”

    This is a broad statement and would seem to cover all internal correspondence between Inquiry panel members, including any emails about Boulton’s UEA affiliation and his views on climate change. In any case, since the Inquiry was established by the UEA, it should also be covered by the UK FOIA (with its limitations, of course).

  43. Posted Mar 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM | Permalink

    The level of deception here only serves to get in the way. Obviously Boulton is hamstrung here (his own fault). He needs to step aside as he’s just in the way now.

One Trackback

  1. By Top Posts — on Feb 19, 2010 at 7:12 PM

    […] The Boulton Bio Watch Question – when will the Inquiry come clean on their webpage about Boulton’s UEA links? Boulton’s […] […]

%d bloggers like this: