Bishop Hill Russell review to be a whitewash
Dec 10, 2009 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell When Sir Muir Russell's inquiry into the goings-on at CRU was announced, many were sceptical of whether the results would be anything other than the traditional civil service whitewash. With that in mind I dropped a message to the CRU press office to try to find out exactly what kind of a review was going to be held.
This is what I asked:
1. Is there any significance in the fact that this is a "review" rather than an "inquiry"?
2. Will the review be open to external observers? Will there be public hearings for example?
3. The first point on the terms of reference in your press release indicate that the review will look at the question of "manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice". This seems very limited in scope. For example, will the review examine the possibility of manipulation of results through the data processing as well as through the data itself? In other words, will it examine code as well as data? Will the review look at the other misdemeanours that are alleged to have taken place, for example attempts by UEA scientists to undermine peer review and other procedures in the journals, rigging of the IPCC review and breaches of its procedures? If not, why not?
5. There is an allusion in one of the emails to the vice chancellor apparently being aware of an attempt to avoid a Freedom of Information request. Will this be considered by the review?
Thanks for your email.
The University has made it clear that all issues arising from allegations as a result of emails stolen from the CRU and published without permission on the web will be considered by an independent review.This will be led by Sir Muir Russell and it is expected that it will report by Spring 2010. Statements regarding the independent review and other related issues are available at: www.uea.ac.uk.
Any further statements will be available from this website and circulated via the wire services.
OK, so we're good on the scope, but we're none the wiser on the nature of the review or inquiry or whatever. I've pressed the, ahem, press officer for a response on the first two points, but he hasn't responded. In seems likely therefore that the inquiry will be held behind closed doors.
I conclude that the intention is to whitewash the affair.
Readers of this blog saw this coming. The results of my survey into sceptic attitudes to Sir Muir were as follows:
I trust him: 2%
I don't trust him: 56%
Don't know: 43%.
This was based on 717 responses, so only 14 people were impressed by Sir Muir's credentials. It was said at the time the review was announced that Sir Muir needed to have the confidence of the sceptic community. It is clear from these results that he doesn't. This, together with the suggestion that he intends to hold the inquiry in private mean that he should really stand down.
He will not do so, of course. He has some whitewash to apply.
Reader Comments (24)
What was the 4th point in your nessage to CRU?
I kant spel message.
For those unaware of his background, Russell's Wiki entry reads:
"He joined the Scottish Office in 1970 and became Secretary of the Scottish Development Agency on its establishment in Glasgow in 1975. He was Principal Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland from 1981 to 1983 and was seconded to the Cabinet Office in 1990. He was appointed Permanent Secretary at The Scottish Office in May 1998, and to the Scottish Executive since its establishment in 1999.
"He was widely believed to be primarily responsible for the massive overspend on the new Scottish Parliament Building and was criticised by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie's enquiry for failing to keep the politicians informed that the expenditure was far in excess of the budget.
"He took office as Principal of the University of Glasgow on 1 October 2003, but attracted much criticism for his handling of the 2006 lecturers' strike, as well as attempts to close the University's Crichton Campus in Dumfries and for receiving pay rises which were much greater than the rate of inflation. He retired in October 2009 . . ."
In short, his reputation for concealing the truth is based on the report of an official *and public* inquiry.
Picture the conversation in the Cabinet Office:
First oily toff: "I say, who can we turn to to get us out of this mess? There's got to be inquest of some sort. Those damn yokels from Norwich have let their weather wallahs run riot and now want us to get them out of the soup. It's too bad just before this Copenhagen thing. (Myrtle had the devil of a job booking me a decent hotel.) It'll need an experienced chap with a flexible approach . . . "
Second oily toff: "I hear that fellow Russell from Edinburgh - you know, the one who got it in the neck for being discreet about that ridiculous office block, the one they tried to disguise as a Spanish holiday let - is at a bit of a loose end. I'm told he's put himself forward. I know he's a Scot who went to some dreadful school in Glasgow and probably drinks too much but I'm sure we could rely on him . . . "
And I'm sure they can too.
CENSORSHIP at the Times
I have tried to post a comment at the Times Online regarding the Met Office signatories. I didn't save the original text but it is along the lines of:
'The Met Office acquired 1700 signatories by passing an email circular around. This circular came across my desk at least 5 times from different sources. I refused to sign it even though I'm an active palaeoclimate scientist. The email circular did not contain a draft text for the Press Release and so I presume that 1700 scientists signed up to a letter they hadn't read until it appeared. This is rather like signing a blank cheque, or dare I say it the 'blind leading the blind' springs to mind. It is thoughtless and immature.'
This comment has not appeared within the 2 hours since I posted it despite others appearing. Perhaps the truth is too much for Ben Webster, Environment Correspondent to handle, or perhaps he's too busy enjoying Copenhagen.
Tony
A typo - there were only 4.(I can't count!)
Splice
Don't hold your breath. The Times is in the vanguard of warmist propaganda sheets. It's science monthly - Eureka - doesn't bother to hide its bias and 10 days ago the Times colour section was wholly devoted to a paean to the existence of AGW and consequent alarmism. Worse, actually, is that the Telegraph has joined the same warmist bandwagon, led by the specially recruited (from the lefty Independent) Geoffrey Lean as lead environment correspondent.
allegations as a result of emails stolen from the CRU and published without permission
Sounds like they're more interested in how the data got out than in what it actually said. Shoot the messenger, as usual...
Splice
too busy enjoying Copenhagen
Where both the limousine hire companies and prostitutes are enjoying record business, I gather! Nice to know that the delegates are so dedicated to their cause...
Will the inquiry be subject to the FOIA?
Will skeptics be called to give evidence.
We need a Royal Commission on climate change.
So after reading Dave B's quote of the Wiki entry, I conclude that he's Sir Humphrey in a kilt.
(Although those of us of a certain age can tell that Dave B perhaps thinks he's more of a "Men from the Ministry" type :-) ).
". . . he's more of a "Men from the Ministry" type".
That's going back a bit! No, as I remember the show, Sir Gregory and his chums were amiable buffoons who generally harmed themselves more than the world at large.
I fear that this "review" is going to be a mix of Humphrey Appleby (without the ethics) and PR guru Malcolm Tucker from "The Thick of It" in a cover-up which, for cynicism, will make the current Iraq Quiz Night look as honest as a deathbed confession.
Any one seeking symbols of the decline of the British polity in a post-industrial age need look no further than the changing of the name of the DTI to the Ministry for Bad Science and the wheeling out of discredited civil servants to plug cracks in the edifice.
It would be hard to think of an appointment less likely to appease the serious scientific community than Muir Russell. It's as if the body politic is telling its critics, "We don't care what you reveal, we'll just cover it up again. We're going ahead with this lunacy and your best bet is to go away and get used to it".
As the press and other media have already done.
I can't think of state-sponsored scientific fraud on this scale since Lysenko or perhaps Eugenics.
And one shouldn't forget the destruction of climate data archives byt the CRU, shortly before the emails were leaked. I phoned the CRU to ask why; after 3 responses that didn't really say anything I was put through to a manager in the press department, who told me that it had been done because of copyright issues. After the leak, they said they did it to make room in their computers. I wonder which it was? Also, now that the Met office is - finally - releasing archives of climate stuff, it's going to be much more difficult to verify, as the data is no longer stored in one place. Was that perhaps the point?
One question I would like to have answered about the inquiry is whether Russell is going to take evidence from the sceptics mentioned in the emails. For example is Steve McIntyre going to be given the chance to explain the relevance of the data he was asking for, and the use he was going to make of it. Without a full understanding of the importance of the denials of data the inquiry would be a whitewash.
Splice: The Times is owned by News International which is run by James Murdoch, whose wife is a professional climate change activist, so do not expect to see anything in it (or on Sky or in the Sun) that is not heavily biased towards AGW alarmism.
Patrick
I know that Russell has been asked that question directly. I don't know if he has replied as yet.
Let me say it again: the University of East Anglia (East An-JEE-laa, as my earnest country-man would say) should not be allowed to conduct an independent inquiry. This is a matter for Parliament and HMG.
Yes, the word "independent" in the context of UK enquiries takes on a very peculiar meaning.
"Last night, the henhouse was broken into. We understand that Mr Fox will be conducting an independent enquiry into this tragic event.".
Comment in the House of Lords from Lord Turnbull re Muir...
"...He needs to establish what the documents really mean and recommend changes in governance and transparency which will restore confidence in the integrity of the data. This is not just an academic feud in the English department from a Malcolm Bradbury novel. The CRU is a major contributor to the IPCC process. The Government should not see this as a purely university matter. They are the funders of much of this research and their climate change policies are based on it..."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/climategate-reaches-the-british-house-of-lords/#more-13969
Muir Russell....hmmm interesting choice given his current association with SCOTTISH POWER and past association with STAGECOACH GROUP PLC
Note: Spanish energy Giant Iberdola acquired Scottish Power in 2007. Using Inerdola's "Advisory Director" model they immediately set about appointing influential Scots to these Directorships. Now when you go to the Scottish Power site, you'll find large links to SP's CCS push and iberdola's "Against Climate Change" agenda which sends you to Iberdolas propaganda site http://www.togetheragainstclimatechange.com/
1. Sir Muir Russell - Advisory Board to Scotland Power: 2007 to Present
Just 2 Days ago this Press Release came out:
ScottishPower JOIN 2020 DELIVERY GROUP ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
ScottishPower's First Minister Alex Salmond said: "There should be no doubt that climate change is the greatest environmental threat we face, so we must act now, and act together, to tackle it."
ScottishPower Chief Executive Nick Horler has joined a new 2020 Delivery Group that is aiming to ensure that all sectors of Scotland's economy and civic society contribute fully to achieving the Climate Change Delivery Plan, which includes the target of a 42 per cent reduction in emissions over the next decade.
The group met for the first time at the Falkirk Wheel this morning (Tuesday 8th December) as the UN Climate Change Conference continued in Copenhagen.Nick Horler, ScottishPower Chief Executive, said:
"ScottishPower is committed to having a central role in the creation of a low carbon economy in Scotland, and I am sure that the 2020 Climate Group will be a productive forum for ...Innovative projects like these will help achieve the Scottish Government's ambitious climate change targets...and ScottishPower is determined to be at the forefront of this green revolution."
http://www.scottishpower.com/PressReleases.htm
2. Stagecoach Group PLC - 1992 - 1995 Non-Executive Director
Company Logo Stagecoach Group PLC - Greener Smarter Travel.
In Conclusions his rather dull resume indicates a boring and objective fellow. However his Directorship with ScottishPower, whose Officers are on the front lines of the Copenhagen summit is deeply troubling.
Concur - Expect a complete and total whitewash.
Notes re: ScottishPower supra
1. I don't have a problem with rational and proven green initiatives at all.
2. I don't have a problem with futile or kooky green initiatives so long as they are voluntary and not compulsory or government mandated.
3. I misspelled iberdola. Typo I'm afraid.
4. ScottishPower launched a new "Green" website that was so slow in loading it maxed my bandwidth and made my cpu & gpu run 28% hotter for 15 seconds...Also the site comes with a handy CO2 calculator...in case you're keeping track: http://www.scottishpowergreen.co.uk/
5 The Iberdola Against Climate Change link & Scottish power CCS links are here: www.scottishpower.com/
6. It's official, now that I've seen the new green site for SP, there is only 1 conclusion....Muir has a substantial interest in appeasing his green energy bosses/contributors/patrons whose entire business premise is: Fossil Fuels are out...Carbon must be reduced....Wind and other Green energy are the future....think of Iberdola as the Exxon of wind...they cannot afford to get crowded out of the energy market by cheaper alternatives.....hence they need Govt. regulation to mandate reductions in "Old Energy"....
it is unfortunate that there is an attempt to hatchet the person who is conducting the review. While this is easy to do, it isn't particularly well-founded, and it is very easy for people to complain that this is just groundless smear, and typical of conspiracy theorists.
It is a much more difficult issue to address the substantive issues that the inquiry will have to deal with. There can be no coverage of the science; that is after all the job of peer review/ IPCC/ grant giving bodies/ etc.
what is necessary is that there is a clearly established rule/ law/ code of conduct, that the emails show has been broken. That is a high evidentiary standard and a high hurdle to jump; even though the emails show intent, they don't necessarily show what you did.
It would be nice to see specific examples of rules that apply to CRU, and specific breaches. Even for FOI, this could be tricky; all the emails in the world from Phil prove nothing, if it is the FOI officer that formally makes the decisions on behalf of the University.
per
Per,
With all due deference to your attempt at objectivity, the first thing Sir Muir Russell should have done was announce his associations with any Global Warming organizations of any sort, no matter how tenuous the association. He failed to do so, and his associations are substantial, not tenuous. To bring attention to this glaring error in judgment, if not wholly intentional omission of material facts, is not a hatchet job; rather, it is yet another example of gatekeepers deciding what information is "relevant" to the public, and what information need not be revealed. Isn't that the core of climategate?
I am dumbfounded that any person, especially one who has spent significant portions of his adult life in public service, could hold themselves out as "independent", and yet fail to disclose any and all known conflicts of interest. This is a serious ethical issue. Now the ethics of not only the University are in question, so too are the ethics of its investigator.
As to the substantive issues, what do they matter if the investigation's unwritten purpose is to rehabilitate the University's reputation with a finding of minor malfeasance and a slap on the wrist as punishment? Surely to be followed by a set of recommendations re: FOI handling, Network Security, E-mail retention policies, Data retention policies and ethics reform? How else could politicians and Corporations justify future grants to the University? Follow the money and don't expect too much in the way of substantive investigation or reporting. Clearly the "investigation" is a one way street. The UEA's response is clear and concise: Don't call us, we'll call you...come to our website this Spring, and we'll post our findings there. It is not an interactive or bilateral nor a multilateral process, it is unilateral; hence we should expect the same results we find in all similar unilateral processes. It's a classic PR response strategy, with a very predictable outcome.
Lastly, even if we assume the substantive issues are in play, there doesn't appear to much in the way of criminality based on my reading of 100 or so of the more outrageous e-mails. One might classify the e-mails as petty, arrogant, conspiratorial in a layman's sense....but not quite criminal. However, the civil system is well equipped to have a finder of fact determine whether any of the e-mails constitute libel, or in the aggregate amount to an unlawful advertisement which has given UAE or other Universities an unfair and unlawful competitive advantage in the market place. Whether or not anyone will press such theories is a different story. Whether they can prove these theories is a subject that becomes more political that legal. I'd like to know what judge in the UK is going to buck the climbing lobby in a high profile case? I'm confident that there are two solid civil causes of action that could get a case to trial, but to get there you need an injured party....so who exactly has been injured? Is this a victim-less crime? a victim-less tort?
What I'm suggesting is that, the substantive legal issues presented by the e-mails & code are largely irrelevant in the absence of a truly independent review or a truly injured party.
not convinced by your initial arguments; his duty is to the University, which is the responsible body. It may well be that he has given a full CV to them. It is the University which has any duty of responsibility, and which must answer for the emails.
I don't accept your argument that the substantial issues are irrelevant. They are especially relevant in the event of a badly done review.
per
Per,
Au contere, mon frere. Sir Muir has already inserted himself into the public debate....Please read the public statements regarding his reference and acceptance thereof.
I draw your attention to the following: "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." Hence, in his first public remark, he has stated the need for an unbiased review while simultaneously ommiting his relationship to the Climate Science community. Had he not made that remark, you might have a small point, unfortunately, .....
Announcing the Independent Review, Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor said: “The reputation and integrity of UEA is of the upmost importance to us all. We want these allegations about CRU to be examined fully and independently. That is why I am delighted that Sir Muir has agreed to lead the Independent Review and he will have my and the rest of University’s full support.”
Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Review, said: “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. My first task is to scope the project, gather the information I need and source the additional expertise that will be required in order to investigate fully the allegations that have been made. Once this has happened I will be in a position to confirm timescales for publishing the review.”
Interesting arguments against academic investigations from Jim Lindgren
http://volokh.com/2009/12/15/michael-mann-should-not-be-investigated-by-penn-state/