Friday
Nov052010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Acton speaks on lunchgate
Nov 5, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Sceptics This is odd. Professor Edward Acton has made what almost appears to be an official statement on lunchgate.
Nov 5, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Sceptics
Reader Comments (16)
O/T but related.
The link for the transcript for last week's Science and Technology Committee brings up a page not found error on your previous post.
Hmm. It's still linked on the committee's web page, but the page is gone. It may be that the corrected version is on its way, but I've taken a copy from Google cache just instead.
I wonder whether the findings of your GWPF report into the inquiries was brought up during or after lunch (not literally, I don't expect Acton and his colleagues to have digested the excellent contents thereof).
Notice how UEA shys away specifically from previous statements about reviews of the quality of the actual science (Oxburgh), and the veracity of the Climategate emails (Russell) and instead talks about CRU scientists being cleared of any 'scientific' wrong-doing. The reviews, as it became clear, were far from being independent and non-partisan, and did not address the specific concerns and allegations that arose from Climategate - evasion was the norm.
Interesting...
'"As a University our intention is to strive to discover and disseminate knowledge and we do so within in a framework which has clearly stated research ethics and a commitment to public understanding of science. '
"We recognise that some are of the opinion that human influence on the well-established warming of the globe is exaggerated but urge them to examine the scientific evidence in an objective way, and to support their opinion through scientific analysis."
They have. That's why they're "of the opinion that human influence on the well-established warming of the globe is exaggerated".
It's as though he knows what the answer before having done the science.
No mention of Delingpole's 'dis-invitation' to the same lunch, however !
Lunch? I think Delingpole missed a dog's dinner.
Here is Helmer's account
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/ueacru-who-are-the-%e2%80%9cdeniers%e2%80%9d-now/
Quote from Acton's statement
"we do so within in a framework which has clearly stated research ethics and a commitment to public understanding of science. The work of all colleagues is considered and published as part of the peer review process where it undergoes further challenge and refinement and remains on the record for future generations of scientists to consider and build upon." End quote.
Indeed ............. and thank goodness the leaked emails also remain on the record. Showing that the challenge in the peer review process was to limit it to "the team" as much as they could and that the refinement that was carried out was to achieve alignment around "group think".
Quote "...do so within in a framework..." unquote. I believe they do a creative writing course at the UEA - perhaps Acton should take it.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall when Acton met Monckton.
I rather liked
My understanding was that the EPA simply stated that the UEA investigations said that everything was OK and they had no reason to doubt them (or words to that effect).How do you spell "corroborate" again?
Interesting...
'"As a University our intention is to strive to discover and disseminate knowledge and we do so within in a framework which has clearly stated research ethics and a commitment to public understanding of science. '
Nov 5, 2010 at 12:13 PM | confused
Perhaps some UEA staff misread this to be an invitation to dissimulate...
Acton - 'During a wide-ranging exchange of views we discussed the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the findings of the two independent reviews, led by Sir Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh'
I have no doubt the exchange of views were indeed wide-ranging.
Helmer at the EU (pre-Climategate)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW4toW1Zh3g
Perhaps Acton thinks that by repeating the words "independent review" often enough, people might believe they really were independent. Or perhaps they won't.