Climate Audit

Poly

In the headpost, you said you wanted a collection of quotes, no debate allowed. But then in your very first collected quote, you give commentary on the quote (seemingly in the same breath!)

“Sir Muir’s independence from the scientific community has been welcomed by the spectrum of interested parties, who have agreed that this lends the review the degree of objectivity required in order for it to remain impartial and authoritative.”

And on the substance of this, does this mean you are speaking for the “spectrum” via your passive voice construction?
Steve: It was a quote not an editorial comment

• Poly
  Posted Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

  Was it a quote by him or about him? Are you trying to collect his quotes (as you said)? If you collect commentary, how is that different than debate?

Steve Robbins

A quote, below, from The Scotsman, here — http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/UN-asks-Did-British-experts.5886722.jp — (ht, Bishop Hill, here — http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/17/sir-muir-on-independence.html –) which adds a little bit to the end of the Sir Muir quote that you cited above:

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.”

Richard Drake

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8393449.stm

Original BBC report on set up, 3 Dec 09

3Ms

Sir Muir said at today’s launch of the review’s terms of reference that he will not shirk from in-depth probing of the content of the emails and this will not be influenced by the fact that the UEA will be meeting the inquiry’s costs. Dr Campbell’s involvement is not a conflict of interest, he insisted.

Geoff Sherrington

This is an email I received after making a voluntary submission from the public(me).

“Sir/Madam
Many thanks for your email to the independent Climate Change Email Review. All emails will be read and eventually published by the Review.
If relevant to the Review remit, your email will be considered as a submission by the Review team.
Where possible we will try to respond to questions raised, though the volume of emails received means that this may take time.

With best wishes
The independent Climate Change Email Review team”

Poly

What a train wreck.

David L. Hagen

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”.

UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief Times Online 15 Feb 2010

David L. Hagen

Sir Muir Russell said:

“This Review must determine if there is evidence of poor scientific practice, as well as investigate allegations around the manipulation and suppression of data.

“As others have pointed out, it would be impossible to find somebody with the qualifications and experience we need who has not formed an opinion on climate change.

“I am completely confident that each member of the Review team has the integrity, the expertise, and the experience to complete our work impartially.”

Allegations of bias against Review member rejected 15 February 2010
——————

Campbell said “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks. As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need to for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails.”

“There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team.”

Russell added, “I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision.”

“We are completely independent,” Russell told reporters. “We’re free to reach any conclusions that we wish. We are free to follow questions wherever they take us.”

Nature Climate Feedback Olive Heffernan February 11, 2010

———————-
See Russel statements in: Partial Transcript of Inquiry Press Conference”

See: Compilation on news on Muir Russell

Martin Ackroyd

http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Muir-Russell

“Russell’s leadership was further called into question when it emerged that the University was under investigation by its main backer the Scottish Funding Council for imposing so called “gagging orders” upon staff [1]. The practice, widely seen as incompatible with academic freedom, was suspected of possibly being an attempt to silence would be whistle-blowers.”

• Martin Ackroyd
  Posted Feb 20, 2010 at 6:08 AM | Permalink

  Sorry – I just noticed my posting is identical to the one before it by Dave McK – dunno how I managed that. Martin

ZT

In the voice recording of the Feb-11-2010 press briefing:
[audio src="http://www.cce-review.org/downloads/IC_A_021109.MP3" /]
Sir Muir says (at 22:33)
“As to the question of what we bring to the party in terms of views about about climate change, um, I’m quite happy that my colleagues should say where they stand on all of that – um – but I would just want to emphasize that the selection was made precisely of people who did not come with an active practicing operation as it were within the area that the remit of the review is about in terms of climate change science – because we wanted to be able to look at the issues and to understand what we were being told but to stand back from questions of people who would come with some kind of track record.”