In response to a question asking Oxburgh about criticisms that the report – all five of pages of it – appeared “rushed and superficial”, Oxburgh described how the panel had patiently stayed in Norwich to see the project through. Oxburgh (my approximate transcript at about 10:51 time on program):
After we had done all the interviewing and talking and scrutiny, we kept the panel together in Norwich while the report was written and while it went through a series of drafts. So we did not go through the endless iterative procedures with which your committee must be familiar, circulating reports, getting comments here, getting them back, balancing them with someone’s opposing comments. We did it all around the table, that probably saved six weeks over normal procedures.
Q: we all appreciate . can I just clarify this point – you said that all the committee members stayed in Norwich.
Oxburgh – [unintelligible]
Q – OK. Does that mean that they were spending all their time on this report over that 2 week period?
Oxburgh – Not over 2 weeks. Probably over 4 days, 5 days something like that. They’d done a lot beforehand.
Q- How much time did each individual spend working on this report?
Oxburgh – Gosh, you mean altogether, not just in Norwich,
Q- You said that it had happened over a 3 week period but most of the time was spent in Norwich.
Oxburgh – People had done an immense amount of work before, one of the most important things. They had a really tough work schedule before they arrived. Then in Norwich, when they were there, they worked continuously. Total number of person-days spent on this was around 15. Something like that. It was… does that answer your question?
Climate Audit readers know that you have to watch the pea under the thimble. The MP was clearly left with the impression that the panel had carried out operations over a 3 week period and that “most of the time was spent in Norwich” – though it was he that said so, Oxburgh leaving the statement uncorrected, having previously created the impression by saying that the panel had stayed in Norwich “while the report was written and while it went through a series of drafts”, later leaving the MPs with the impression that they were there for “4 days, 5 days”.
Through FOI requests, we have obtained the actual schedule of the Oxburgh panel online here.
Here is the actual schedule for the panel hearings in Norwich on April 7-8.
9:30 a.m. – 9.45 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby) Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss and Jacqui Churchill, VCO Coffee and Tour round CRU
9.45 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library 30 minute presentation by Phil Jones followed by questions
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members – room number 00.2 CRU
1:30-3:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
3.30-4.30 pm If needed: follow-up meeting with Phil Jones and Peter Liss
4.30-5.30 pm Panel private meeting
5.30 pm Peter Liss to chaperone Panel to Zicer Layby for taxis to hotel
7.00 p.m. Working Dinner at Caistor Hall
Thursday 8 April
8.45am- 9.00 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby). Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss Coffee in CRU
9.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members – Sainsbury Centre, Garden Restaurant – Jacqui to collect and escort
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m. Final Meeting
3.00 p.m. – 3.30 p.m. Coffee + Depart in taxis from Zicer Layby
Travel arrangements (obtained through FOI) show that this schedule was adhered to. Oxburgh arrived in Norwich at 6:30 pm on the evening of April 6 and had a train reservation back to Cambridge at 3.40 pm on April 8.
Their schedule lists two appointments with CRU staff (with one potential.) On April 7, they were to meet with “Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team” from 9.45 a.m. to 10.45 a.m., described as a “30 minute presentation by Phil Jones followed by questions”. The next day, another meeting was scheduled from 9.15 a.m. to 10.45 a.m – making a total of 2.5 hours of scheduled meetings. The schedule provided for a possible “followup meeting” with Phil Jones from 3.30 to 4.30 pm on April 7.
Re-reading the schedule, it seems that the panel only spent a relatively small portion of its time actually interviewing Jones, Briffa and the CRU Team – who, by the way, seem to have been interviewed collectively rather than individually – and most of its time in “Discussion”. Scheduled “discussion” took place on the morning of April 7 (11-12.30), the afternoon of April 7 (1.30 to 3.30 and 4.30 to 5.30), a ‘working dinner”, and more discussion on the morning of April 8 (11-12.30) and the afternoon of April 8 (1.30-3), making a total of 7 1/2 hours of scheduled “discussion”, plus undoubtedly time at dinner and lunch.
Based on the schedule, most of the discussion in the morning and afternoon of April 7 took place after the Jones presentation in the morning and a half-hour of questioning.
Jones’ second scheduled interviews was in the morning of April 8, finishing at 10.30 a.m. Suppose we take the following statement of Oxburgh’s at face value:
After we had done all the interviewing and talking and scrutiny, we kept the panel together in Norwich while the report was written and while it went through a series of drafts.
If the report was actually written “after [they] had done all the inteviewing”, keeping “the panel together in Norwich while the report was written and while it went through a series of drafts” actually resulted in the panel being detained only until 3 p.m. the same day.
This was anticipated in a March 4 email from Trevor Davies to the UK government Chief Scientist John Beddington who had suggested Oxburgh to UEA:
Thank you for the intial suggestion! He [Oxburgh] has cleared April 6/7/8 in his diary for a 2-day session at UEA, and anticipates writing the report on the last day.
No doubt Oxburgh was happy to do a favor for the UK government Chief Scientist, but surely Beddington should have thought twice about asking a favour from someone who is chairman of a subsidy-seeking wind utility (Falck Renewables).
As to Oxburgh’s description of his ordeal in Norwich as “4 days, 5 days”, I’m highly sympathetic to the idea that spending almost 48 hours in Norwich seemed like “4 days, 5 days”, but using conventional time measurement techniques – such as checking the day of the week – the panel actually spent less than two days in Norwich, skipping town just as Geoffrey Boulton arrived for his one interview with CRU the next day about proxies, neither panel having bothered to compare itineraries, with Oxburgh and Hand spending an extra day in Norwich (and Graumlich only one).
Again, while Oxburgh didn’t correct the impression that the MP had been left with, Oxburgh himself didn’t expressly say that the panel had spent “most” of three weeks in Norwich. In Phil Willis’ terms, it was one more example of “sleight of hand”. But if you watch the pea under the thimble, you see that the impression that the MPs were left with does not accord with the actual itineraries and schedules.
More on other aspects of Oxburgh’s testimony tomorrow.
[Note – Sep 8 evening: In addition to the session of the full panel on April 7 and part of April 8, previously on March 30, Lisa Graumlich had visited CRU together with Hand and Oxburgh and met with Briffa in the morning from 9.15 to 10.45 and had panel discussions as well. The 15 person-days is 3×1(Mar 30) + 6×2 (Apr 7-8)=15. Oxburgh and Hand spent 3 days in Norwich, Emanuel, Davies and Huppert 2 days and Graumlich 1 day.
Josh’s cartoon says it well:
Climate Audit 