Bishop Hill The timing of Acton's eleven
Oct 27, 2010 Climate: Parliament When Graham Stringer quizzed Davies, he probed the UEA man on the question Stephen Metcalfe had failed to pin Davies down on, namely whether the papers went to the panel before or after approval by the Royal Society.
Having been forced to admit that they went out two days before Royal Society approval, Davies made an interesting defence. He introduced the idea of a conversation between himself and Martin Rees, in which it was apparently indicated that the Royal Society would approve the UEA list of papers for use in the Oxburgh panel's work.
It seems to me that the problem with this argument is that Rees has freely admitted that he doesn't know the relevant literature - he is of course a cosmologist.It is hard to square his purported approval at this point with his very cautious passing on of the issue to Sir Brian Hoskins in the email correspondence on 12 March.
Stringer also discussed the absence of the multiproxy studies in the inquiry. Davies responded by saying he disputed the assertion. He said that there had been little discussion of which papers should have been included and says the list in my report seems to have come from a post on on McIntyre's site dated 15 April. Davies seems to think that this is significant. Clearly we are deep into logical fallacy territory here, with the UEA man apparently trying to convince the committee that if a list of papers they should have included postdates the report, they are somehow absolved of leaving out the most criticised papers.
Davies also says the McIntyre list was mostly referenced in the Russell evidence, although again this appears to be fallacious, since the allegation is that they weren't looked at by Oxburgh. Davies notes that some papers on the McIntyre list were in the Oxburgh list, but again it is not clear why he thinks this absolves him of leaving out the multiproxy studies. Davies then goes on to list the papers that McIntyre discussed in his submissions to the original S&T committee and to the Russell panel, listing them all in gory detail. The same points about fallaciousness apply.
Reader Comments (5)
Given the importance of the topic, there should be an Affirmation or Statutory Declaration by Rees and Davies that the alleged conversation did take place. It simply does not sit well with the strange wording of the email where the Royal Society was asked is they would backdate approval of the list of papers.
Dear Martin [Rees] and Brian [Hoskins],
The UEA Press Office advises us that the Panel and UEA will come under enormous pressure for details of the publications to be assessed when we announce the membership of the Panel (probably Thursday [Mar 15]).
Initially we did not wish to do this but we have now been persuaded this is probably a good idea and it may, indeed, deflect other disruptive efforts by some in the media/blogosphere. Ron is comfortable with this, but is keen that we can say that it was constructed in consultation with the Royal Society.
I did send you this list earlier, which I attach again here.[List obtained] They represent the core body of CRU work around which most of the assertions have been flying. They are also the publications which featured heavily in our submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry, and in our answers to the Muir Russell Review’s questions.
I would be very grateful if you would be prepared to allow us to use a form of words along the lines: “the publications were chosen in consultation with The Royal Society”.
Best Wishes
Trevor
................................
Why was the RS brought into the Inquiry? And does Lord Rees have the authority to commit the RS to his response without wider consultation? I think not.
I am no longer certain about the significance of this issue. It was orchestrated from the beginning that these "independent" inquiries were going to be whitewashes, so what difference did it make regarding what actual manuscripts they planned to review? The end result was going to be meaningless babble, repeated ad nauseam, with plenty of evasive distractions to keep the opposition at bay. There is no accountability since the government is in bed with these weasels. Expect no action since any action ultimately would come back on the face of the government and its pro-AGW policies.
It's important that these "inconsistencies" are pointed out. There are many who still believe that the inquiries were independent and thorough.
"Having been forced to admit that they went out two days before Royal Society approval"
Avoidable mistakes were made by this whitewash crew: standards are falling!
Avoidable mistakes were made by this whitewash crew: standards are falling!
Standards are not falling, but the capability of Blogs to open the lid has grown.
Notice not a peep from the MSM, that is what they are expecting.