Bishop Hill UEA inquiry head announced
Dec 3, 2009 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell A civil service insider, Sir Muir Russell, will head the inquiry into CRU.
His Wiki page is here. Nature report here.
Terms of reference are here.
1. Examine the leaked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. 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.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.
I think it's probably significant that this inquiry will not look at what are the two most important aspects of the scandal for the AGW hypothesis - namely that CRU staff and their associates appear to have conspired to exclude sceptical views from the scientific literature and also that they appear to have conspired to exclude them from the IPCC reports.
Bishop Hill
Reader "Splice" in the comments wonders if journal bullying and IPCC rigging are not covered by the terms of the first item. I think that a half-decent civil servant could exclude these issues under a not-unreasonably strict reading of the terms. This is probably worth clarifying, especially since the inquiry can apparently modify its terms if necessary.
I also wonder about the fact that "code" doesn't seem to be included under the heading of "manipulation".
Reader Comments (22)
Following the development of this case on the blogosphere, the MSM and above all the UEA website I sense that there has been a subtle change in the response and mood. Clearly there has been time for the enormity of the situation to sink in.
The initial UEA response was one of bluster and indignation. See the statements of 24.11.09 and 28.11.09. These focused on a supposed illegal hack, stolen emails etc. The response amongst the blogs, and especially the more serious of these (Bishop Hill, WUWT, CA, Lucia, Air Vent, the Pielkes, Philip Stott) has been to understand the seriousness of much of the material that has been leaked. These cover the science (integrity of data bases, unpublished algorithms and codes, tricks and blending of different records), and academic misconduct (obstruction of the FOIA and EIA requests, destruction of emails, conspiracy to pervert the peer review process).
Now we have the UEA press release which is clearly focused on the academic reputation of the university and has little of the self pitying tone we read last week. One gets the impression that there is a subtle, yet perceptive distancing of the university from th Climatic Research Unit, or am I being too optimistic in my hopes for this inquiry.
Wiki link is wrong, should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muir_Russell
And he is not without his own past problems
"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."
Thanks Chris. Fixed now.
The terms of reference seem pretty reasonable and cover the major issues. It will be interesting to see who else is on the committee. The terms of reference require some pretty knowledgeable folks to limit being snowed by those who have reputations to protect.
UEA should NOT be allowed to get away with launching its own inquiry. This investigation properly belongs in the hands of government and should be conducted with the maximum amount of transparency.
Bishop says:
I think it's probably significant that this inquiry will not look at what are the two most important aspects of the scandal for the AGW hypothesis - namely that CRU staff and their associates appear to have conspired to exclude sceptical views from the scientific literature and also that they appear to have conspired to exclude them from the IPCC reports.
However, I hope that these may be included under item 1 of the terms above. I also note this statement from the university:
'Sir Muir will have the discretion to amend or add to the terms of reference if he feels necessary, devise his own methods of working, and call on appropriate expertise in order to investigate the allegations fully.'
I wonder if Sir Muir Russell will be taking evidence from those materially affected by the actions of the extended CRU gang. Perhaps McIntyre and McKitrick, von Storch and Zorita, Roger Pielke snr and others, including Doug Keenan, Willis Eschenbach who have had to endure the persistent deceit, bad beahviour and manners of this cabal.
I think Bishop is right that a strict reading of the terms could lead to exclusion of the peer review and IPCC issues. Item 1 does refer to the manipulation or suppression of data, and not to papers, concepts or ideas. We do need some clarity here.
On a lighter note though there is evidence that CRU might be guilty as charged. One reader did point out that one of CRU's staff has 'dendrochronology, programming and data manipulation' as his job description.
Ben Santer comes to Phil Jones defense, claiming Phil is not the "secretive, data destroying" so and so depicted by the bloggers. this despite the email from Phil to Ben explaining just how he's obstructed Britain's FOI acts. Simply stunning... I put in a comment to this effect, but I doubt it will be posted. Found the quote from your climate clippings post. Good work!
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/a-climate-scientist-on-data-mining-for-dirt/
"He took office as Principal of the University of Glasgow on 1 October 2003, but attracted much criticism for ....receiving pay rises which were much greater than the rate of inflation." An insider, then.
Still, he took a First in Physics at a decent University, which is probably better than Prof Jones could have managed.
i think (2) will be of interest, since it goes to the heart of whether cru's with-holdng of data is appropriate. The NERC (UK environment research council) appears to have much more stringent requirements for releasing data and code than evidence by CRU, so there could be some interest here.
per
Splice - CRU is still overtly defensive. They deleted their data/availability page after the Times reported on its stating that data had been deleted.
Just heard the c--t on the BBC R4 news. Obviously his mind is made up.
He's a warmist.
I see Sir Muir Russell is or was on the advisory board for Scottish power which is:
"Capitalising on Scotland's talent and abundance of clean energy sources will bring rewards not only for ScottishPower, but for people across the country, our economy and the fight against climate change. That's why I am so pleased to see the advisory board up and running with such a distinguished membership. With foresight and expert advice combined, ScottishPower can look forward to a bright future.”
Yeah, right.
It'll be a total greenwash, according to the 'Principles of Whitewash', which every British civil servant has been steeped in during his/her career.
It will cost lots of money (ours, the taxpayers) and will take a nice, gentle and very long time..
These 'servants' have form ...
But did you notice how open ended the report due date is? Spring 2010. Hmm that spring s to mind that thy are just waiting for the furor to die down, Dr. Jones suddenly finds out that he enjoys spending that much time with his family and retires and the CRU is found to just been a naughty boys dorm. Nothing more to see here and lets move on to the next climate meeting.
I got my hopes up when I read "leaked e-mail" above, but I see that's not what they are called in the original :-(
I also notice that they are calling it a "Review" rather than an inquiry (or an enquiry) ;-)
"The Independent Review will investigate the key allegations that arose from a series of hacked e-mails from CRU"
Seems wide open. Who says what key means, or determines what constitutes an allegation? What sources can they arise from? I could be wrong, but none of the email exchanges refer to the harry_readme file where much of the condemnation arises from. So the issues it throws up can be excluded from the review.
Even if the review finds evidence of data manipulation, it's not there to point fingers, only to recommend "the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU".
This guy seems like a "safe pair of hands", I think we'll see another "Hutton". Except, that was an actual inquiry, this is only a review.
I bet the poor bastard doesn't know what he's let himself in for.
Sir Muir is going to have his hands full.
What has taken the skeptics side of the blogosphere, armed with highly motivated and competent scientific/non-scientific observers, an intense 2 weeks to root out - and which meaningful resulting analyses are spread among many dozens of their blogs (certainly not the MSM), is somehow going to be reviewed, understood, appreciated and factored into a meaningful decision process of one man, by Spring!? Right!
Will he have power to subpoena staff - under threat of dismissal? The man needs to pull together independent staff, including scientific, IT and legal advisors. All in 3-4 months? Right?
This move has a bucket of whitewash built into the ToRs.
Not good that he was himself the subject of an enquiry where he was criticised.
"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 for failing to keep the politicians informed that the expenditure was far in excess of the budget."
Not someone as pure as driven snow.
The concept of a University reviewing itself is laughable. Isn't it all about government grants? Sir Muir's record seems to show he was pretty good at taking government money (legally of course).
What is needed is a formal audit of the CRU and Tyndall Centre by the National Audit Office, it should look at:
(a) cost effectiveness and probity of all expenditure (given the tax avoidance route for some of the tree ring study funding)
(b) compliance with UK legislation (e.g. FOI and EIA regulations), including retention and release of data created/obtained using public funds
(c) misuse of publicly funded infrastructure - i.e. the libelous and illegal nature of some of the email correspondece passing through officially provided and publicly funded University systems
(d) Data archive and retrieval policies at the University - the work of the CRU is being used to drive national and international policy, as such the archiving and retrieval of information, reports etc should be to Public Records Office standards!
Anything less than this suggests a wanton and negligent misuse of public funds and malfeasance in public office.
UEA announces on Dec 2nd that they are developing a new business line (business degree based on carbon offsetting), and on Dec 4th they announce they are going to review themselves concerning whether the evidence supporting this business line is accurate. Seems a tad of a contradiction.
And a degree IS a business line for a university. Just look at MBA's. The schools that first invented these are able to charge HUGE amounts of money for degrees. Wharton in the US is a perfect example. UEA has a huge fiscal interest in getting past this PR disaster while preserving the subject all it can.
The IPCC is also "investigating", but again does any REALLY think they are going to put themselves out of business?