data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/388d5/388d59e3215f893a54248da4208624a92cb82a4c" alt="Author Author"
Oxburgh's terms of reference
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/388d5/388d59e3215f893a54248da4208624a92cb82a4c" alt="Date Date"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/388d5/388d59e3215f893a54248da4208624a92cb82a4c" alt="Category Category"
I'm going to go through the video again and make a more considered analysis of what was said. This first post relates to the initial exchanges between the committee chairman, Andrew Miller, and Edward Acton.
Miller asks Acton about the terms of reference for Lord Oxburgh's report and asks if these were changed. He notes that the old committee were told that Oxburgh would assess the science ("an external appraisal of the science itself") but that Oxburgh subsequently said this was not the case, citing the UEA press release of 22 March ("an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications"). The question rather seems to miss the point, since neither UEA's evidence or the press release make it clear that the committee was only looking for evidence of deliberate wrongdoing.
Acton's reply is that the terms were not changed and that the purpose was to "assess the science and see if there was anything wrong" - words he used in the original hearings. This phrase could mean anything. He then quotes the original S&TC report, which asked the Oxburgh panel to determine if the work of CRU had been "soundly built" and says that this is what he meant - "was it scientifically justified". He goes on to say that Oxburgh notes that the unit's work was indeed "scientifically justified".
It should be noted, however, that the line from the report Acton quotes concludes a paragraph discussing the need for the unit's work to be based on "a solid foundation of excellent, peer reviewed science", so I think it's fair to say that the committee were talking about the quality of the science. As we know, the Oxburgh panel only looked for evidence of deliberate wrongdoing and didn't assess the quality of the science.
However, instead of addressing the discrepancy between what Oxburgh actually did (look for evidence of deliberate wrongdoing) and what UEA told the committee (assess the science and see if there was anything wrong) he obfuscates, by introducing the idea that some people might have thought that Oxburgh was going to assess the whole of climatology, and then launches into a preprepared spiel on the EPA report and an NAS report.
So at the end of the first exchange, we have no explanation of why there was no assessment of the quality of CRU's science.
(Readers have noted that the EPA concluded that CRU's input to climate science was sound because Oxburgh had exonerated them. It would be good to get confirmation of this, because we would then clearly have a circular argument).
Reader Comments (12)
Some background:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science
These links show that the EPA consider Oxburgh and to have confirmed the "scientific rigour" among other things:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/preface.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/response-decision.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume3.html
{snip]
"scientific rigour" or "scientific rigour mortis"?
This is part of the brief for Oxburgh
"....we decided to augment the Muir Russell review with an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment."
Prof Davies said: “Our concern has been to bring together a distinguished group of independent scientists who understand the difference between assertion and evidence, and are familiar with using the latter to judge the validity of conclusions arising from science research. The panel members have the right mix of skills to understand the complex nature of climate research and the discipline-based expertise to scrutinise CRU’s research. How they do this will be entirely down to the panel.
The last sentence seems (as far as I can recall, but I believe the details were reported here) to be at odds with the more narrow brief that Oxburgh thought he had been given.
Somewhat tangential, but it seems that the UEA are still helping the government in the war on GHG's:
Strongly worded link!
Steve2
Thanks for that. So no one, has ever checked the science of UEA / CRU. The US say the UK did. The UK say the US did.
But no one ever has. Why?
What would someone find out, if someone, even anyone, actually checked the science.
I hope the MP's realise that UEA are simply sticking two fingers up, and take appropriate action.
Based on the lies coming from other countries, the first target should be the temperature record, unless of course anyone else knows better
Most of the "Science" appears to be self- referential and circumscribed by "peer-review"
Expertise seems to be divided between the empiricists, who study real-world data, and computer-aided projectionists whom seem happy to replay box office hits, over and over again!
The former have doubts about the data, the latter have no doubts at all.
Data are dangerous. Fantasy and Data are incompatible until homogenised!
And that's where the CRU comes into its own.
Almost sounds like they were not sure what they were looking for, but are absolutely confident that they didn't find it.
The CRU panel's testimony is littered with comments such as "Ok what we were asked to do was "X" but we thought it would be far more appropriate if we did "Y". As far as I know nobody asked them to make these judgements?
People keep quoting the brief for the Oxburgh inquiry. Folks Oxburgh told SM that there was no written brief.
Only recently did they discover they had a photographic memory and could have answered Steve's request (if they has the slightest interest in being open, honest and helpful).
Golf charley
There's a lot of material there in the EPA stuff that is new to me, from what I can see the EPA deal with a number of complaints from several different organisations and states arguing against the EPA Endangerment Finding. It seems the EPA broadly took a reactive role searching for flaws in the source of complaints enough to refute them rather than proactively search for any information.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume3.html
But it seems to me, for example, that the "hide the decline" issue is palmed off as being dealt with by Oxburgh. This is the only mention I can find after the criticisms of the RSC is cited by a complainant the EPA respond (my bold):
Hang on, I thought Acton said the EPA carried out a review of the emails "in forensic detail"?
Perhaps he meant to say that they looked forensically at those emails which had passed peer-review?