SM: This article by JD Ohio was submitted and briefly online on February 23, 2018, but, for some reason that I don’t recall, was taken offline. In any event, as Mann’s ancient libel case wends its way into a DC court, I noticed that it was still pending. It deals concisely with a central issue […]
The Mann libel case has been attracting increasing commentary, including from people outside the climate community. Integral to Mann’s litigation are representations that he was “investigated” by 6-9 investigations, all of which supposedly gave him “exonerations” on wide-ranging counts, including “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even supposed […]
Despite having to sign an agreement with the UK Information Commissioners to obey the Freedom of Information legislation, the University of East Anglia is doing whatever it can to resist and avoid compliance. Previously it refused to provide information on the terms of its contract with Muir Russell, saying that it was a “public appointment”. […]
Some interesting new information on the formation of the Oxburgh Panel has come as a result of Andrew Montford continuing to appeal and dig. See here and here. The formation of the Oxburgh Panel seems to have been a somewhat hurried response to a dismal press conference on Feb 4, with Alan Thorpe of NERC […]
Bishop Hill reports that the UK government response to the SciTech Committee is now online here. The UK government submission “tricked” (TM- climate science) the SciTech Committee with untrue and/or deceptive assertions that the Muir Russell and Oxburgh reports were carried out ‘independently of Government and Government had no role in informing how these reviews […]
Please read the preceding post on Yamal background before today’s post discussing the handling of Yamal/Polar Urals by the Oxburgh “Inquiry”. The Oxburgh and Muir Russell are particularly disquieting when one closely examines their handling of Yamal and Polar Urals, the issues that were most strongly highlighted in my own submission and that were most […]
In The Climate Files, Fred Pearce wrote: When I phoned Jones on the day the emails were published online and asked him what he thought was behind it, he said” It’s about Yamal, I think”. Pearce continued (p 53): The word turns up in 100 separate emails, more than ‘hockey stick’ or any other totem […]
UK MP Graham Stringer has a strongly worded Op Ed here archive (h/t Bishop Hill) Stringer, who is on the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, described the Oxburgh “inquiry” as follows: The Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia seemed to share Deer’s desire to get at the truth when he announced an independent […]
The Oxburgh Report stated: The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society. This statement has been questioned ever since the publication of the Oxburgh Report. That the Royal […]
Andrew Montford’s review of the Climategate Inquiries is released today and is online here. Ross McKitrick’s is online here.
Climate Audit 