EPA and Dutch Skimmers

Jun 20, 2010 – 3:37 PM

Questions have begun to be raised about supposed refusal by EPA of Dutch offers to supply large skimmers to help at the Gulf (reversed only recently.)

Here are links to a May 4 article about the Dutch skimmers (the earliest reference that I’m aware) blaming the refusal on EPA. I’ve also heard stories blaming the refusal on the Jones Act. The story is very murky right now. I’ve linked to a recent FOI request by San Francisco reporter Yobie Benjamin for information on the handling of foreign offers of help.

Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments (58)

InterAcademy IPCC Review in Montreal

Jun 16, 2010 – 7:42 AM

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/IACIPCCMontreal.html

Christy’s remarks are at about 2:30. He mentions the proprietor of CA favorably.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (24)

Unthreaded

Jun 15, 2010 – 12:46 PM

Long overdue

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized, Unthreaded | Comments (382)

Desmogging Desmog’s Tricks – Part 2

Jun 13, 2010 – 12:20 PM
By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments (150)

IAC: “Such As McIntyre and McKitrick”

Jun 12, 2010 – 4:22 PM

Marcel Crok of the Netherlands had an interesting exchange with the Netherlands-based InterAcademy Council this week – see his blog post here.

Noticing that the InterAcademy Council’s IPCC Review was holding hearings in Montreal and that presenters were being imported from Europe (e.g. Robert Watson, Hans von Storch), Marcel wrote to the IAC at 4 pm on Thursday June 10 (see here for full letter):

Given the fact that the meeting is in Montreal and that both McIntyre and McKitrick live relatively close from there (compared to Watson and Von Storch for example), this means that the IAC Panel has decided deliberately not to seek evidence from them.

This screams for an explanation in my opinion. A clear explanation from the IAC Panel about this decision would therefore be highly appreciated.

William Kearney, titled as Spokeperson for InterAcademy Council Review of IPCC, Amsterdam, and Director of Media Relations, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. wrote back to Marcel at 6:52 pm Friday June 11 (00:52 a.m. Saturday June 12 Dutch time)
saying that members of the panel were interviewing “dozens of scientists and other stakeholders with insight and views on the IPCC process, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick” as follows:

Given that the InterAcademy Council committee reviewing IPCC processes and procedures expects to deliver a peer-reviewed report by Aug. 30, it has limited time for presentations at its public meetings and therefore has chosen speakers who are current leaders of IPCC or who can offer representative and varying perspectives of IPCC processes based on prior IPCC experience. Meanwhile, members of the committee are interviewing dozens of scientists and other stakeholders with insight and views on the IPCC process, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. A questionnaire also has been sent to hundreds of scientists and stakeholders, and posted to our website so the public has an opportunity to offer input. The presentations, interviews, and answers to questionnaire all will be taken into consideration as part of the committee’s review.

“Interviewing dozens of scientists and other stakeholders with insight and views on the IPCC process, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick”.

In fact, neither Ross nor I have been interviewed by them nor have we been approached by anyone from the InterAcademy review as to our availability for an interview – something that might have been easily arranged while members were in Canada. One really wonders why organizations like this make untrue statements, when they are certain to be checked.

The InterAcademy Council did something else that was, shall we say, a bit sly. When Marcel wrote to them on Thursday, not only had we not been included in the “dozens” to be interviewed, we had not even been included in the “hundreds” to whom questionnaires had been sent. At 4:53 pm Eastern June 11, they sent me the standard questionnaire. An hour or so later, they emailed Marcel, saying that they were “interviewing dozens of scientists and other stakeholders with insight and views on the IPCC process, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick”.

The email enclosing the questionnaire began:

The InterAcademy Council has established a committee to conduct an independent review of the policies and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A critical element of the committee’s analysis is the opinions of knowledgeable experts and thoughtful observers regarding IPCC’s processes and procedures for producing assessments. Only a few such individuals can interact with the committee at each meeting. Consequently, the committee has carefully selected a limited number of thoughtful individuals to provide written comments. On behalf of the committee chair, Harold Shapiro, and vice-chair, Roseanne Diab, I would like to invite you to respond to the questions below.

They told Marcel that the questionnaire had been sent to “hundreds” of scientists, but their email to me told me that “the committee has carefully selected a limited number of thoughtful individuals” and that I was fortunate enough to be chosen. It must have been a lucky day for me as I got several emails from people in Africa telling me that they had also carefully selected me as their beneficiary. If all of these careful selections prove out, it will have been a good day.

Update June 13: I just sent out the following email to William Kearney:

William Kearney
Director of Media Relations
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

In a recent email to Marcel Crok on behalf of the InterAcademy Review of IPCC, you stated that “members of the committee are interviewing dozens of scientists and other stakeholders with insight and views on the IPCC process, such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick”.

In fact, no member of the committee has made any effort or request to interview either McKitrick nor me. You should write to Crok withdrawing this untrue statement.

Nor, as at the time of Crok’s letter, had we even been included among the “hundreds” of scientists and stakeholders to whom questionnaires had been sent – a point that you also withheld from Crok.

Regards,
Stephen McIntyre

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments (57)

Desmogging Desmog’s Trick – Part 1

Jun 11, 2010 – 3:11 PM

All too often writers like Morgan Goodwin at desmog here or Brian Angliss at S& R here think that tricks are a “good way to solve a problem” (as per Gavin Schmidt at realclimate.)

In a recent post, Angliss moves the pea under the thimble, using an IPCC diagram to supposedly rebut a criticism of Jones’ trick email (about the WMO 1999 diagram), and then, after this sleight-of-hand, accuses me of making claims “not supported by the published record” – relying on this trick to supposedly justify his claim. Desmogblog, without doing any due diligence of their own to determine whether Angliss’ claims are valid, spreads this disinformation. Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments (100)

British Due Diligence – Royal Society Style

Jun 10, 2010 – 2:59 PM

The Oxburgh “report” said that the eleven “representative” publications that it reviewed had been “selected on the advice of the Royal Society”. The eleven articles were so implausible a representation that it seemed scarcely credible that they could have been selected by any person with any expertise in the field. I asked the Royal Society (as did Andrew Montford) who at the Royal Society had done the selection and their criteria as follows:

Can you tell me who at the Royal Society was responsible for providing this advice and what their criteria were for selecting these particular 11 papers?

This evoked the following reply, that, like all too many replies on climate topics, was totally unresponsive to the actual question:

The Royal Society agreed to suggest to UEA possible members for the Scientific Assessment panel that would investigate the integrity of the research of UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

Members of the panel were suggested on the basis of the excellence of their work and their breadth of expertise and experience (including statistical capability).

The Royal Society recommended that the panel had access to any and all papers that it requested and suggested that the review begin by looking at key publications, which were chosen to cover a broad range of subjects over a wide timescale.

I sent a follow-up pointing out the unresponsiveness, but received no reply whatever.

Andrew Montford also attempted to get this information from the Royal Society. As he reported at his blog, his first inquiries (which included telephone calls) were met with identical unresponsiveness.

On May 6, after considerable persistence, Lord Rees of the Royal Society replied:

Thank you for your letter about the Science Assessment Panel set up by the University of East Anglia.

The Oxburgh panel had access to any publications it requested. As has been previously stated, the University suggested that the panel looked in particular at key publications from the body of CRU’s research referred to in the UEA submission to the Parliamentary Science and technology Committee. This was done in consultation with the Royal Society. I advised that the panel’s mode of operation was primarily a matter from the chair. Not having the relevant scientific expertise myself, I consulted experts who agreed that the suggested papers covered a broad range of subjects over a wide timescale.

The panel of members was chose by the chairman Lord Oxburgh from a list of around a dozen approved by the Royal Society. In making the recommendations, I consulted widely and members of the panel were suggested on the excellence of their work and their breadth of expertise and experience. Nobody with a significant link to UEA was included on the list. I believe that the Royal Society’s involvement helped to ensure that these busy experts accepted this important task.
Martin Rees

You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these lords. Rees said that “as has been previously stated, the University suggested that the panel looked in particular at key publications from the body of CRU’s research referred to in the UEA submission to the Parliamentary Science and technology Committee.” The Oxburgh “Report” didn’t say that. It said something quite different: that the eleven publications had “selected on the advice of the Royal Society” and that the University had “agreed” that they were a “fair sample”. The language used here by Rees did not occur in the Oxburgh “report”, but was used in the press release on March 22, 2010 by the University announcing the inquiry.

More or less concurrent (Apr 16, 2010) with my unsuccessful request to the Royal Society and immediately after publication of the Oxburgh “report”, I submitted an FOI request to the University of East Anglia as follows:

Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request correspondence between the University of East Anglia and/or its officers and the Royal Society between December 1, 2009 and April 12, 2010 concerning the selection of publications considered in the Oxburgh “report”. Thank you for your attention.
Regards, Stephen McIntyre

Andrew Montford submitted a broader FOI request for all correspondence between the University and Oxburgh that was flatly rejected (more on this in another post.) I received a reply to my narrower request on May 26 – a reply that sheds remarkable light on due diligence as practiced by British lords.

Oxburgh visited the University of East Anglia some time during the week of March 8-12. I presume that the visit took place in the first part of the week, perhaps even on Monday March 8. (Beddington telephoned David Hand in the evening of March 8 for the purposes of “warming [him] up” – a call confirmed to UEA’s Trevor Davies by Beddington’s secretary on March 9. On March 10, Oxburgh emailed Kerry Emanuel, using his House of Lords c/o University of East Anglia letterhead, inviting him to join the panel, sending him a list of “around a dozen papers”, using language that left Emanuel with the impression that the papers had been selected by the Royal Society (as the Oxburgh “report” later stated):

I have been invited jointly by the University and the Royal Society to put together a small group to re-evaluate some important elements of the Unit’s published science. This work comprises around a dozen papers largely published in major peer-reviewed journals… Although all the panel would be welcome to read all the work, it is planned that each paper would be looked at in detail by at least two members and each member would be asked to pay attention to several papers in particular. I am attaching the list of publications that need to be scrutinized.

Now to British due diligence.

Two days later (March 12), after Oxburgh had already sent out the list of publications to Emanuel, Davies sent an email to Rees and Brian Hoskins at 11:07 a.m. saying that Oxburgh would like to say that the list (already sent out) had been chosen in “consultation with the Royal Society”. The email shows clearly that Davies is well aware that they will be severely criticized for the list and that they want to keep it secret. (In fact, they did keep it secret. The language of the press release was worded very evasively and no one guessed what they planned to do until after the “report” was a fait accompli. Davies:

Dear Martin [Rees] and Brian [Hoskins],

The UEA Press Office advises us that the Panel and UEA will come under enormous pressure for details of the publications to be assessed when we announce the membership of the Panel (probably Thursday [Mar 15]).[SM: In fact, the membership was not announced is until March 22 here; the Press Office’s surmise proved incorrect and there proved to be no pressure on them for such details, which did not come out until the report itself on April 14.]

Initially we did not wish to do this but we have now been persuaded this is probably a good idea and it may, indeed, deflect other disruptive efforts by some in the media/blogosphere. Ron is comfortable with this, but is keen that we can say that it was constructed in consultation with the Royal Society.

I did send you this list earlier, which I attach again here.[List obtained] They represent the core body of CRU work around which most of the assertions have been flying. They are also the publications which featured heavily in our submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry, and in our answers to the Muir Russell Review’s questions.

I would be very grateful if you would be prepared to allow us to use a form of words along the lines: “the publications were chosen in consultation with The Royal Society”.

Best Wishes
Trevor

Seven minutes later, Rees reverted saying that he had no personal knowledge of the literature, but he had “no problem” saying that the list had been “drawn up in consultation” with the Royal Society – even though it had already been sent out – if Brian Hoskins was “happy” with the list:

From: Martin Rees
Sent: 12 March 2010 11:14
To: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)
Cc: Hoskins, Brian J; P Liss; SJC
Subject: Re: CRU Science Assessmant Panel

Dear Trevor,
It seems to me that the scope of the panel’s work is a matter primarily for Ron [Oxburgh], but if Brian [Hoskins] is also happy with this choice of papers (as you know, I have no relevant expertise myself!) I see no problem with saying that the list was drawn up in consultation.
best wishes
Martin

Thirteen minutes later and only twenty minutes after the first email, Hoskins said that he was not “aware” of all the papers that might be included, but he did “think” that they covered the “issues of concern”. (Hoskins was subsequently asked whether he regarded himself as an “expert” in the literature and said that he didn’t.)

From: Hoskins, Brian J
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 11:27 AM
To: Martin Rees; Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)
Cc: Liss Peter Prof (ENV); sjc
Subject: RE: CRU Science Assessmant Panel

Dear Trevor
I am not aware of all the papers that could be included in the list, but I do think that these papers do cover the issues of major concern.
Best wishes
Brian

Davies then thanked Rees and Hoskins for their comments:

From: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 11:59 AM
To: Hoskins, Brian J; Martin Rees
Cc: Liss Peter Prof (ENV); sjc
Subject: RE: CRU Science Assessmant Panel
Dear Brian and Martin,
Thank you both for your comments.
Best Wishes
Trevor

Back to Rees’ letter of May 6 to Andrew Montford in which he said that he had consulted with “experts who agreed that the suggested papers covered a broad range of subjects over a wide timescale.” The record shows that Rees consulted only with one person (not plural), that the one person was not an “expert” in the literature and he merely thought that the list covered the “issues of concern” – which it didn’t.

The total “due diligence” – which involved no actual experts – took less than 20 minutes.

The claims in the Oxburgh report that the eleven papers were “representative”, were “selected on the advice of the Royal Society” with the UEA then agreeing that they were a “fair sample” are all untrue. Rees and Hoskins of the Royal Society know that these claims are untrue, but have taken no steps to ask Oxburgh to withdraw the false claim that they had been “selected on the advice of the Royal Society”.

In statements on release of the Oxburgh “report”, both Rees and Hoskins (as also Bob Ward) praised the 5-page and undocumented Oxburgh “report” for being “thorough” – the benchmark for Royal Society “thoroughness” apparently being set by the 20 minutes taken by Rees and Hoskins to respond to Davies’ request.

I understand that the Royal Society is BP’s first choice for an investigation of the Gulf oil spill.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments (72)

House of Lords c/o University of East Anglia

Jun 10, 2010 – 9:53 AM

In response to requests for mundane information such as the terms of reference of the Oxburgh Inquiry, Oxburgh pretty much laid down a gauntlet for an FOI inquiry, asserting that no relevant documents existed.

I am afraid that I am not able to be very helpful as none of the documents about which you inquire exists…

The only written record, apart from any notes that individuals may have kept privately but of which I am unaware, is our final report that was agreed unanimously. Similarly the terms of reference were given to me verbally and are encapsulated in the introductory paragraphs of our report.”

Needless to say, I submitted an FOI request to the House of Lords, being informed today that they had no documents.

Dear Mr McIntyre

Thank you for your request to the House of Lords administration on 3 June 2010. You asked for information under the Environmental Information Regulations on the following:

“1. Any documents containing information on (a) the terms of reference of the Oxburgh inquiry at the University of East Anglia; (b) the selection of the eleven papers; (c) the solicitation and appointment of panelists. Such documents may include emails to or from Lord Oxburgh and the (a) University of East Anglia and/or its officers and employees; (b) the Royal Society and/or its employees; (c) members of the Oxburgh panel, including Kerry Emanuel, David Hand, Huw Davies, Herbert Huppert, Lisa Graumlich and/or Michael Kelly.

2. Any documents containing information on interviews of CRU employees by the Oxburgh panel, including any emails, notes, memoranda or transcripts, including, without limitation, any emails to or from Lord Oxburgh and the parties referred to request (1) above.”

The House of Lords administration does not hold this information.

You have made your request to the House of Lords administration. The House is cited as a public authority in Schedule 1 of the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, and in the Environmental Information Regulations. However, the provisions of the Act and the Regulations only apply to recorded information held by the House of Lords administration. For the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations, members are regarded as separate entities from the “House of Lords”. Accordingly members of the House of Lords are not themselves public authorities under the Act or Regulations. The provisions of the Act and Regulations will therefore not apply to information held only by an individual member e.g. their private correspondence or to correspondence they may have received.

I trust that the above explains why the administration does not hold the information you have requested.
[brassplate]
Yours Sincerely
Katharine Stevenson
House of Lords

The reason why the House of Lords doesn’t have any relevant documents may well be explained by the peculiar letterhead on Oxburgh’s letter to Kerry Emanuel, shown below:

The University of East Anglia previously turned down Andrew Montford’s FOI request from the University to Oxburgh – Montford having no reason to suspect that Oxburgh was using House of Lords letterhead with a UEA email address.

“Independent” inquiries – British-style.

PS- to clarify the House of Lords answer, they’re also saying that correspondence by individual members is not subject to FOI – since the members (as distinct from the House of Lords as an institution) are not “public authorities” subject to FOI. However, the University of East Anglia is a “public authority” subject to FOI and their excuses in their stonewalling of Andrew Montford are not necessarily going to stand up on appeal.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments (25)

Supplemental Submission to Muir Russell

Jun 10, 2010 – 9:14 AM

The following was sent yesterday after I noticed that the April 22, 2010 minutes of the Muir Russell panel indicated a possible intent on their part to avoid consideration of IPCC activities by CRU employees, even though IPCC is how climate scientists speak to the world.

Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (7)

Oxburgh versus Emanuel

Jun 5, 2010 – 12:01 AM

In response to my inquiry asking for a copy of any document setting out the terms of reference of the inquiry, Lord Oxburgh stated:

I am afraid that I am not able to be very helpful as none of the documents about which you inquire exists.

And later:

The only written record, apart from any notes that individuals may have kept privately but of which I am unaware, is our final report that was agreed unanimously. Similarly the terms of reference were given to me verbally and are encapsulated in the introductory paragraphs of our report.

In response to a previous inquiry, Kerry Emanuel, a member of the Oxburgh panel, stated:

As for the written documentation, such as our charge, we were at one point asked not to circulate those, and while that restriction may no longer be in force, I feel a little reluctant to pass those along without checking first. The cleanest way for you to get that material is to ask Ron Oxburgh for it.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (76)