Thursday
Dec032009
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Is Sir Muir the right man for the job?
Dec 3, 2009 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell When the possibility of an inquiry into CRU was announced, it was said that it was important that the chairman had the confidence of sceptics as well as those who believe in the AGW hypothesis.
I don't recall being asked for my opinion on Sir Muir Russell's candidacy, but I thought it would be interesting to see what readers here think about him now that they've had a chance to cast their eyes over his Wiki page.
I'm not sure the question is displaying quite right below, so just in case, the question is: Are you confident that Sir Muir Russell will lead a fair inquiry into CRU?
Reader Comments (31)
Wow! That looks like a ringing endorsement! ;o)
I have a post on http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2009/12/dependent-investigation-of-climategate.html
Since the Royal Societies of both London and Edinburgh fully endorse IPCC and thus CRU, Muir may not be objective since he is a member of RSE.
Interesting point on the RSE. From the UEA release
"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"
It would be better if this was a board of equal members, including some non-academics such as lawyers (to examine evidence) and journalists as well as believers and skeptics. It would also be better if this was a proper public enquiry especially into where all the money has gone.
I kind of expected the technology involved to be more than one guy working with old (albeit still valuable) software and datasets which make little sense and don't join up very well. For my millions spent I expected something out of Minority Report at least!
He is not a Richard P Feynman.
This needs someone intelligent and open-minded - not an establishment gofer.
I'm somewhat optimistic (for a skeptic), and often disappointed, but based on Sir Russell's remark, relayed by Chris, above, I'm cautiously hopeful, and the remit given to the investigation by UEA seems pretty objective, far-reaching. and fairly well stated for having been drawn up, no doubt, in haste:
"Examine e-mail exchanges to determine whether there is evidence of suppression or manipulation of data at odds with acceptable scientific practice which "may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes".
"Review CRU's policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and "their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice".
"Review CRU's compliance or otherwise with the UEA's policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) for the release of data.
"Review and make recommendations about the management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds."
Hope these objectives and outcomes set a good example for whatever might happen in the States, or at other locales where the integrity of climate research is now in doubt. The larger scientific community has got to recognize that its reputation has been put to the question.
I wouldn't be hopeful here. This person has ties to Green Energy:
"The nine person Advisory Board is chaired by Charles Miller Smith, Chairman of ScottishPower from April 2000 until April 2007. Joining the Advisory Board are Samantha Barber, Susan Deacon, Sir Tom Farmer CBE, Lord (John) Kerr, Lord (Gus) Macdonald, Sir Muir Russell and Ramón de Miguel. ScottishPower’s Chief Executive, José Luis del Valle, will also be a member."
http://www.greenjobs.com/Public/newsitems/news00685.htm
You can see his name in a 2007 avisory board.
Who?
Sir Muir Russell is who
The secret is in the remit.
Ask yourself what questions are not being asked?
Is he going to check the numbers? No.
So will the alarmists claim that the outcome means the numbers are correct?
of course they will.
Hence it has an element of sham.
However, I suspect Jones will go. He's set the Vice Chancelor up, and he'll go for that.
Nick
If he has interests/directorships on the boards of green technology companies, I absolutely cannot see how he can be considered impartial. There's a direct conflict of interest right there! Do they think we're all completely stupid?
Ah, I already know the answer to that.
To restate my previous comment slightly, I wish the NAO would start an investigation of this. I think "follow the money" has more legs than "check the numbers" given that nobody outside the argument wants to get involved in the crossfire of stats.
After all a common statement by alarmists is that skeptics with blogs are funded by oil / energy companies. So lets see if we get value for money.
I think it should be more than one "trust-looking" guy, perhaps two, so that a competing analysis can be put forward. That is the whole point. If the competing analysis is transparent, it may have a chance to gain the trust. What is at stake here is the credibility. It is more than one guy. One from the Royal Society does not seem to fit the bill.
I've looked at the bio and am still unable to form an opinion of Sir Muir Russell. I am still arguing that UEA should not be allowed to launch its own investigation ahead of an inquiry by parliament or HMG. This is not strictly a UEA internal affair.
It all really boils down to how much character and integrity does Mr. Muir possess? His closest associates can probably attest to this. I would suggest that Mr. Muir will be conducting his review in a glass house and he will be much more concerned with his own credibility and reputation that with covering up any fraudulent behavior on the part of the scientists. Further the University will share this agenda, I would think. Or at least I would hope.
I'm afraid the British Establishment has much form on this count. There's the Iraq war inquiry for starters and then the Stern report. These people only care about their reputation amongst their peers, not the general public; certainly not the "deniers".
Nick - "Is he going to check the numbers? No." Bingo! the whole point of it is being overlooked. He is going to look at the emails and discuss the semantics of the word "trick". Does he have the skills to crunch the numbers? Does he have the skills to understand some one else's crunching of the numbers?
R Phelan - I agree - does anybody have any examples of internal reviews of malpractice that come out with harsh critical results and radical reforms? I'm not an expert but the self policing professions seem to have a particularly bad track record.
Is there anything in Sir Muir's background that says he has the tenacity and rigour for a job like this? If his Wiki bio is correct it seems he has already proven incapable of an "audit" role on the Scottish Parliament construction. It appears he is a professional Civil Servant - what training does he have for open and independent Inquiry work? Has he done anything like this before? On what basis has he been selected?
IMO one reason the establishment has turned such a blind eye to the shortcomings of (some) climate science is that the whole cosy number of academic life is being exposed along with the scientific inadequacy of our politicians.
Not quite sure why we need a government "independent" enquiry.
People have been enquiring independently into this for years now. They're branded as deniers and skeptics because they don't come up the fraudulent answers that governments demand, and get, from those in their employ. Outsiders have the barefaced cheek to actually come up with the truth. That simply won't do, will it?
And that's why we know the results of this farce have been decided in advance.
If he is a one man band, then the historical responsibility for his report will rest on his shoulders alone. If he whitewashes/greenwashes the issue then shame will follow. It may take a while, but it will be profound. If he's a man with a conscience then that fact will help his deliberations.
I'm quite confident that this Muir guy is set to produce a green wash.
I also heard him on BBC Radio 4 (a state propaganda channel) taking a pretty warmist line; poo pooing the notion that AGW pe se was being called into doubt here.
We'll see.
[BH adds: It has been pointed out to me that Sir Muir has not appeared on Radio 4. I believe this may have been the UEA vice-chancellor.]
Yer Grace,
I apologize if I post too often and am too unfamiliar with UK custom... but an inquiry by the University of East Anglia can't be anything more than an attempt to pre-empt a public inquiry. This is an issue that needs to be reviewed by Parliament. HRH Wales has put his prestige on the line on the basis of CRU evidence..... the Windsors need to be the first in line demanding a full, transparent inquiry.
He's said that he'll get others to work with him, whether on a panel or just as advisors is unclear from the quote, emphasis added: "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."
His only ties to climate change are by proxy, like tree rings to temperature. Nothing direct here.
Sir Muir Russel's direct ties to, and vested interests in, "green energy" companies, can they be considered a conflict of interest of any kind? What about his allegiance to the RSE (Royal Society of Edinburgh), which not only completely endorses warmist claims, but is now launching a full scale "inquiry" (the exact word used) entitled "Facing Up To Climate Change":
"The Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) has launched its next major inquiry, Facing up to Climate Change. A multi-disciplinary group of experts will look into the gap between the policies necessary to deal with climate change and what the public will currently accept."
"The science that indicates that climate change is resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is well established, with the only real uncertainty being the scale of the future changes. Even if an ambitious international settlement can be achieved at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, Scotland will need to adapt to the climate change that is already inevitable."
Whatever the case, I'm sure Sir Muir will be particularly well positioned and suited to employ some kind of trick to help the CRU hide the decline in public trust. (and of course, by trick I only mean "a good way to solve a problem" - and by decline I only mean the extreme "divergence problem" of public opinion and trust)
Is it just me, or does he have a resemblance to the boss of Sir Humphrey Appleby i.e
Sir Arnold Robinson, who was Cabinet Secretary?
Sir Arnold mentored Sir Humphrey on how to bury problems that were politically inconvenient.
O/T, but I thought this was interesting.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
It shows average temperature & average C02 over geological time, and in particular it suggests that C02 and temperature levels are historically low. It also suggests that C02 levels over 2000ppm do not tip Earth into a runaway greenhouse effect.
Let me know if this is debunked or useful - if the latter, I intend to point people to it. Certainly suggests to me that global warming is caused by dinosaurs. Clever girls! :D
I voted "no I don't trust him", but to be fair, I wouldn't have trusted anyone leading such an enquiry (my OED is perfectly happy with that spelling, and it's one I'm more comfortable with :-) ).
Rule 1 of these things is that you don't set them up until you know the answer you want, and Rule 2 is you appoint a chairman who is guaranteed you give you the same answer as Rule 1.
Similarly with referendums.
I've been a student at UoGlasgow for 3 years; I set eyes on Muir a few times but can not claim to know much of him.
While i'm here: I've been reading this blog only since the emails were leaked, and have a read a few times per day since. Fantastic resource, Mr Hill.
i can trust him in my opinion
I wish they had chosen a retired judge with a good reputation.
A more neutral choice.
Based on his wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muir_Russell
"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"
and this link
http://www.heraldscotland.com/pound-23-000-pay-rise-for-university-principal-1.871413
I think we can savely say that he'll look after No. 1. If there's a chance that he'll get rewarded for coming to the right politically correct decsion then I have no doubt that he'll take it. Make of that what youwill.
KevinUK
The problem with Mr Muir, as has already been shown by other posts here, is that Mr Muir has existing/previous links to bodies who are tied or related to climate change and/or university's in general.
for any inquiry to be transparent and neutral, it is IMPERATIVE that the investigator be shown to be neutral and transparent. All UEA is setting themselves up for here is showing the world that they stand behind the cover up and antics of CRU.
lets not forget here, this is not a UK issue, this is a Global issue, the results of this investigation has global effects, and with the policies and the $ behind the data that CRU was fiddling, there is a lot more at stake for the AGW scammers if any investigation was found to show that CRU data was really the farce that we believe it is.
remember, even if the data was not investigated, any negative conclusions from Muir about CRU in general will only fuel the argument against CRU by the 'skeptics'.
This is bigger than Mr Muir and the resulting conclusion. It is likely to reflect that whilst CRU 'may have been silly', that nothing (in their opinion) distracts from the data's gloom and doom.
we will then be told that nothing will please the "skeptics" and the 'greenwash' will be forced into global acceptance by the various other "scientists" who are on the $ camp rather than the scientific one...
I wouldn't be hopeful here. This person has ties to Green Energy:
"The nine person Advisory Board is chaired by Charles Miller Smith, Chairman of ScottishPower from April 2000 until April 2007. Joining the Advisory Board are Samantha Barber, Susan Deacon, Sir Tom Farmer CBE, Lord (John) Kerr, Lord (Gus) Macdonald, Sir Muir Russell and Ramón de Miguel. ScottishPower’s Chief Executive, José Luis del Valle, will also be a member."
spelling practice