Oral testimony at UK Parliamentary Inquiry

Feb 23, 2010 – 8:40 AM

The UK Inquiry has scheduled oral evidence on Match 1 as follows. They did not invite Ross McKitrick or me or anyone that was actively involved in the efforts to deal with CRU over the past five years.

3.00pm The Rt Hon the Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
3.30pm Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner
4.00pm Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
4.40pm Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
5.00pm Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Defra

Bishop Hill comments as follows:

None of the people who were actually involved in dealings with the CRU, who were involved in the nitty gritty of trying to extract information from them, the people who were insulted and abused in the CRU emails, the people who understand the technicalities of “Mike’s Nature trick” and hiding the decline, none of these people will actually get a say. They are left outside in the cold.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments (73)

Hometown Coverage

Feb 20, 2010 – 3:25 PM

There’s another story about climate blogs in the Toronto Globe and Mail – one of my neighbors told me while I was walking out to Danforth Ave that Gavin had paid me a backhanded compliment – probably more emphasis on the backhand than the compliment. See here.

While Schmidt complains that I’m supposedly causing a “reduction” in human knowledge, I think that that distinction more properly belongs to his realclimate associate Michael Mann, also interviewed for the article.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in News and Commentary | Comments (238)

“UK Govt’s Chief Adviser on Climate Change”

Feb 20, 2010 – 3:10 PM

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/CRUreview
Reader ZT has pointed to a video (see here) in which Geoffrey Boulton, erstwhile “contributor to G8 preparatory and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change”, opens a Coca Cola bottling plant in Romania, identified this time as the “UK Govt’s Chief Adviser on Climate Change”.

I’m all in favor of energy efficient plants and have no objection to Geoffrey Boulton cutting ribbons here and there, as sort of a scientific Queen Mom.

But let’s remember what Muir Russell promised the beleaguered University of East Anglia:

“I agreed very willingly to Professor Acton’s request to undertake this Independent Review. 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.”

Someone who is billed at the openings of Coca Cola plants in Romania as the ‘UK Govt’s Chief Adviser on Climate Change’ hardly fits Muir Russell’s promise of having “no links to either the University or the Climate Science community”.

The University of East Anglia already has a hard enough time dealing with problems created by CRU. By betraying Russell’s promise to the university community, Russell and Boulton are being profoundly unfair to not only the staff, but the students of the university.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Tagged , | Comments (53)

World Dendro 2010 Withdraws Invitation

Feb 19, 2010 – 5:55 PM

On December 8, 2009, I received one of my rare invitations to make a presentation to climate scientists – a keynote speech at the plenary session on June 16, 2010 of World Dendro 2010. At the time they had received almost 500 abstracts. It was proposed that I speak on a program chaired by Achim Bräuning, with presentations in sequence by ‘N.N’, Juha-Pekka Lunkka, me, Keith Briffa, Fidel Roig.

Two days ago, I was advised that due to receiving almost 500 abstracts, their biggest problem has been to find more time for presentations and ‘many good presentations are without time and place’, so they canceled the plenary session in which I was presenting and thus my presentation. (This and two other plenary sessions are still listed on the programme. Update 11 pm – at the dendro listserv here , the cancellation of the Plenary session was announced on Feb 17 – so the cancellation of the Plenary session is real.)

They said that they were “sorry for this bad news” and expressed hope that time could be found for such discussion “in some future events” and thanked me for my “interest in WorldDendro2010 Conference”.

I replied;

Reading between the lines, I assume that some other speakers protested against my making a presentation. I appreciate the original invitation, I regret that you withdrew it but understand your situation.

They acknowledged:

You are right that quite many planned speakers for the Roundtable discussion were not very willing to participate that session.

Their effort to find more time for oral presentations in parallel scientific sessions appears real enough [11 pm – at the dendro listserv here, the organizers were criticized for not having enough slots for all the people who wanted to present], but somehow didn’t seem to apply to me.

As I said in my reply, I understand the practical reasons governing the Finnish organizers and I appreciate their initiative in the first place. I don’t entirely understand why any dendro would feel so threatened by discussing things like the connection of linear mixed effects models to the construction of tree ring chronologies that they would refuse to participate in such a session, but hey – it’s climate science. They’d rather avoid criticism than confront it.

Update: as noted by a reader below. Wyoming State Climatologist asked the conference organizers to “reconsider” one of their choices for plenary session:

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:53:48 -0700
Reply-To: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
Sender: ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum
From: Stephen Timothy Gray
Subject: Re: an open letter re: WorldDendro 2010 – Registration
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

Dear Brian-

Thank you for bringing this to the Forum. I share your frustration regarding attempts to organize a session, and I am puzzled by the apparent rejection of so many abstracts. As you say, the purpose of such meeting should be to “maximize attendance and the exchange of information between members of the global tree-ring community”.

What concerns me even more is the preliminary list of invited speakers. I believe that plenary and keynote talks should challenge and inspire the community. However, in at least one case it appears the organizers are giving the stage to someone who would just as soon destroy our work for their own petty agenda. I sincerely hope that the organizers will reconsider their choices before making the program final.

Highest regards,
Steve

Stephen T. Gray, Ph.D.
Director, Water Resources Data System
Wyoming State Climatologist

Update2 Feb 22: I’ve received an invitation to send in an abstract to one of the parallel workshop sessions.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments (47)

Muir Russell

Feb 18, 2010 – 1:38 PM

Also there are some interesting statements by Muir Russell in various posts. Let’s collect them here for reference. Again no debating.

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

Boulton Information

Feb 18, 2010 – 1:37 PM

We’re spreading interesting Boulton links across too many threads and need to pull them together in one place. Let’s keep the topical discussions, but please crosspost links to this thread. The person posting the link may have a brief synopsis, but please do not use this for arguing or editorializing.

http://www.cce-review.org/About.php

None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More information about each of the review team members can be found in the Biographies section.

The Muir Russell FAQ states:
Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?

No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

In respect to Team member Geoffrey Boulton, General Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, they say:

Professor Geoffrey Boulton has expertise in fields related to climate change and is therefore aware of the scientific approach, through not in the climate change field itself.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments (62)

The Boulton Bio Watch

Feb 17, 2010 – 9:12 AM

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.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Tagged | Comments (87)

Boulton’s Changing Story

Feb 17, 2010 – 8:51 AM

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?

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Tagged | Comments (50)

“None have links to …IPCC”

Feb 17, 2010 – 1:18 AM

Inquiry:

None [of the Team] have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Boulton CV Chinese link

9. CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE & RESEARCH POLICY
…
As contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change

And oh yes, another thing. Remember that other fib by the Inquiry that “None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit… ” At the Inquiry press conference, Boulton partially fessed up:

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.

Except his CV says that he worked at UEA until 1986 (as was noted in his Debretts bio):

1968-86: School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia. Lecturer:1968-76, Reader:1976-86 (half-time, 1982-86)

Oh and another thing. Boulton also said at the press conference:

I should stress that I am not involved in recent and the issues of recent and current climate nor am I part of that community.

But heres what his CV said:

His research is in the field of climatic and environmental change and energy, and is an advisor to the UK Government and European Commission on climate change. He leads the Global Change Research Group in the University of Edinburgh, the largest major research group in the University’s School of Geosciences.

ht reader oneuniverse who spotted Boultons CV.

Update (Feb 17 8 am): The FAQ at the Inquiry website now says:

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.

Memo to Muir Russell: all I did in this post was quote Boulton’s CV. Don’t blame the blogs – You say that Boulton has not been “a member of the Panel or made any submissions to it”. Well, why did his 2007 CV say that he was a “contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change”?

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments (32)

Cicerone at the AAAS

Feb 16, 2010 – 9:31 PM

The AAAS conference is starting this week in San Diego. A special session has been convened by Cicerone to discuss Climategate – Friday, February 19, 2010: 8:30 AM-11:30 AM, Room 6F (San Diego Convention Center). The abstract for the session is:

Past controversies over historical climate trends and access to research data resurfaced in 2009 after the theft and disclosure of e-mail exchanges among a group of climate scientists. Some subsequent publicity questioned the legitimacy of the scientific consensus on global climate change. Questions also were raised about the conduct of these climate scientists and public expectations of scientists in all fields. This symposium, convened by the NAS and AAAS, focuses on the broad questions of transparency and integrity of climate-change research and all of science. It draws on three highly relevant National Research Council reports: On Being a Scientist, which describes the ethical foundations of scientific practices, and personal and professional issues that researchers encounter; Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age, which calls on researchers to make data, methods, and other information underlying results publicly accessible in a timely manner; and Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years, which examined the scientific evidence for paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions. The session will cover topics ranging from the peer review process and the importance of domestic and international scientific assessments to the responsibilities of individual researchers, scientific journals, professional societies, and other groups in developing and implementing rules and procedures for data access and sharing of research methods.

Speakers are:

Francisco J. Ayala, UC Irvine, The Practice and Conduct of Scientific Research
Sheila Jasanoff, Harvard, Science in Society
Gerald R. North, Texas A&M, The Data Behind Climate Research
Phillip A. Sharp, MIT, Data Use and Access Across Disciplines

Gerry North told the Penn State Inquiry that he hadn’t read the Climategate emails out of “professional respect”. This apparently qualified him as an “expert” on the topic.

Cicerone appears to have been quite careful not to invite any speakers that actually knew anything about the controversy. It sounds like it will be totally uninformative – an ideal Sir Humphrey outcome.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Tagged | Comments (30)