Bishop Hill Russell review under way
Feb 11, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell The BBC seems to be first out of the block in reporting on the Russell Review's first appearance at a news conference an hour ago.
The most interesting part is the identities of the panellists:
- Geoffrey Boulton, general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Professor of Geology)
- Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief for Nature journal
- Professor Peter Clarke of the University of Edinburgh (a particle physicist by background, he now heads the e-Science Centre at Edinburgh)
- David Eyton, head of research and technology at BP
- Professor Jim Norton, vice president for the Chartered Institute for IT.
There seem to have been no changes to the scope of the review.
My first reaction is that the appointment of Philip Campbell will be severely criticised, given Nature's highly questionable role in some of the back story to the Hockey Stick affair and earlier scandals like the Huang borehole paper. (Update: and of course there was the legendary "deniers" editorial in Nature too). This is a big mistake by Sir Muir. The others are unfamiliar names, however, which is probably a better sign.
There is still a great deal about the review that gives me cause for concern: the fact that there is still no indication of whether evidence will be taken from sceptics or whether evidence will be taken in public. The apparent absence of statistical expertise on the panel.
Another worry is that the terms of reference still seem remarkably unclear - does consideration of UEA's "policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings" include consideration of whether individual scientists have engaged in intimidation of journals? Who knows?
Another interesting feature of the review is that they are passing on assessment of the past scientific work of the CRU to a special investigative panel put together by the Royal Society. I think most people will shrug their shoulders at this. This is the twenty first century and arguments from authority don't carry much weight any longer. The Royal Society is a body closely associated with global warming promotion. Its advisory panel on global warming is full of CRU people, including Phil Jones and his replacement as CRU director, Peter Liss. There are many other global warming promoters in there too. I think most people on the sceptic side are simply not going to take the Royal Society's word for it.
One can't help but be reminded of the NAS panel in 2006, where they announced that they were going to set up a separate panel to look at the question of data availability. The panel finally reported two years late in 2009, failing to answer any of the questions they were tasked with answering. I wonder when the Royal Society is going to report. Balls being kicked into long grass here I would say.
There's only one solution: free the data and free the code.
Bishop Hill
Splice in the comments notes that Geoffrey Boulton is an ex-UEA School of Environment man. Dear oh dear.
Geoffrey Boulton on global warming:
We have the evidence, we have a consensus on scientific interpretation, we have the investment, we know (Stern) that mitigation now rather than later is cheaper. But, we have not sorted out the politics and started to adapt behaviour to minimize risks. We cannot do this without public support. If we fail, we will be risking the consequences of catastrophic climate changes.
(Link)
Bishop Hill
BP paid to help set up the CRU too, didn't they?
Bishop Hill
In the comments, this wonderful interview with Philip Campbell, shortly after the Climategate story broke:
INTERVIEWER: I think you must have heard of the Climategate scandal recently. Some renowned global warming proponents showed a conspiracy to produce fraudulent data to support the global warming scenario. How do you see this scandal? Some say that this breaking couldn't come at a worse time because of the upcoming Copenhagen conference. What's your opinion.
CAMPBELL: It's true that it comes at a bad time but it is not true that it is a scandal. The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact the only problem there has been is some official restriction on their ability to disseminate their data. Otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.
INTERVIEWER: So you think there has been some misunderstanding between the scientists and the outsiders?
CAMPBELL: Absolutely, absolutely.
H/T Mac in the comments.
Interesting to compare this to the FAQ on the Russell Review website
Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.
Bishop Hill
The Independent is reporting that evidence submitted to the inquiry will be published on an official website, provided it is relevant to the review - i.e. they don't want to debate the truth or otherwise of AGW.
This, at least, is welcome news.
Bishop Hill
The website for the inquiry is here.
Reader Comments (58)
Geoffrey Boulton used to be in the School of Environmental Sciences sometime in the 1970's and 80's.
Splice - at Edinburgh?
No at UEA.
I would be surprised if Boulton did not have a big hand in the appointments of Crowley and Hegerl at Edinburgh, good team members both.
The fact that only now are they announcing the panel, and are estimating dates for a final report (and noting that the select committee was announced weeks later, and has already closed it's receipt of submissions) shows that the Muir Russell review is pure 19th Century civil service run around. Just look at what's been going on in terms of information release since and how much the scene has changed. If this takes the usual year or so to receive submissions and report it will be totally irrelevant; in fact, it almost is already irrelevant.
I know of some stories about Campbell that reflect very poorly on him too. I believe that a committee with Campbell on it will probably act unjustly.
Perhaps some people should co-sign a detailed letter of complaint to Sir Muir? (I am happy to help in drafting, if there is enough interest.)
I can predict the outcome already.
It will be something along these lines:
'Some regrettable irregularities have been found, for which the responsible parties have been reprimanded. However, the science is sound and settled.'
Might as well send them all back home and save the money wasted on this whitewash.
I'm prepared to sign a suitable letter.
Ah. Would that be the same BBC who, at 7:10am this morning, discussing this matter, referred to the "stolen" emails from UAE.
As yet, I have had no response to my complaint, which requested that they desist from this unless they have proof of it.
I never thought I'd say this, but the BBC's time is gone. They need to be cleaned out like the Augean Stables.
Recent Nature editorials covering the Climategate scandal appear to have been written by the Hockey Team themselves. Impossible therefore to regard Campbell as anything other than Mann & Jones' sockpuppet.
Whitewash inevitable.
Of course it's going to be a whitewash. Those people were all chosen for a good reason: they all have an interest, either now or in the future, in maintaining the status quo.
You should sign up for this scientific offering from the Royal Society next month.
Public Symposium: Rising to the Climate Challenge - Artists and Scientists Imagine Tomorrow's World - 19, 20 March 2010, Venue: Tate Modern Starr Auditorium, London http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/Tate-Modern-Climate-Symposium/
Tate and the Royal Society collaborate by bringing together scientists and artists to imagine the social and psychological impacts of climate change.
On 19 and 20 March, Tate and the Royal Society collaborate to bring you a screening of the film The Age of Stupid following (sic) by a discussion and a public symposium about the social and psychological impacts of climate change.
"The Age of Stupid following" seems quite an appropriate title.
Regards
Dennis Ambler
mms://webcast.cri.cn/en/webextra/2009/12/1204interview.wma
Interesting comments about the Climategate emails from Dr Philip Campbell. It would appear he has already formed an opinion on them.
Try this
http://english.cri.cn/7146/2009/12/03/1901s533264.htm
Mac
That's truly a truly dreadful, sanctimonious clip and should be enough all by itself to condemn the enquiry out of hand. I would recommend all visitors to this site to listen to it if they can endure it (it's only about 4 minutes long - seems more like 4 hours, I'm afraid). Yes, agreed, the whole thing simply has to be whiter than whitewash. It's appalling to think that in 2010 we still behave in this way.
Hell, we might as well send Mann over from here in Pennsylvania to be part of the gang doing the review. He's getting paid for doing nothing right now. I'm sure he can come up with the correct outcome! At least his students won't have to put up with him for awhile.
Anyone know if this theory `has legs` or has it been kicked into touch?
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
[BH adds: It's been around for a while, I think]
Mac
I've posted a transcript of the good bit as an update to the post. Thanks for that. Amazing.
I have an idea this is going to be a post-normal review.
Bishop Hill
Today's announcements:
* Sir Muir Russell: Climategate e-mails inquiry under way
* UEA: New scientific assessment of [CRU’s key publications by
independent external assessors] announced
1. Here's the URL of the second announcement!:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/New+scientific+assessment+of+climatic+research+publications+announced
UAE: 'New scientific assessment of climatic research publications
announced'
2. The 'manipulation' or 'analysis' of data is usually a
disapproving or approving way of describing the same ordinary
scientific or statistical process.
So Sir Muir Russell's panel could consider it part of their task
to consider the issue that I highlighted in my posting earlier
today under thread 'Russell review to start work': How valid is
the CRU's analysis of the data comprising the instrumental
temperature record?
And you describe member of Sir Muir Russell's panel Professor
Jim Norton as 'vice president for the Chartered Institute for
IT', which to my ears would suggest that he is experienced in
data analysis.
But I fear not.
3. Thus here's what Professor Trevor Davies, UEA
Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Engagement
said about the scope of the independent reassessment of the
CRU's key publications:
'Published papers from CRU have gone through the rigorous and
intensive peer review process which is the keystone for
maintaining the integrity of scientific research. That process
and the findings of our researchers have been the subject of
significant debate in recent months. Colleagues in CRU have
strenuously defended their conduct and the published work and we
believe it is in the interests of all concerned that there
should be an additional assessment considering the science
itself.'
Observe the key words: 'Additional assessment considering the
science itself'!
4. So while the Met Office needed only sixteen days from
20 November, the date that the University of East Anglia
'confirmed the hack', to 5 December 2009 to conclude that it was
necessary to undertake a complete reanalysis, to take three
years, of the CRU's data, it may now be congenially six months
or longer before the UEA's independent external assessors shall
be appointed, shall deliberate, and may or may not in the event
come to the same purely advisory conclusion.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Thursday 11 February 2010
It's obvious that Russell has surrounded himself with senior establishment figures who will provide the white paint in copious quantities.
Where are the experts in statistics, in FORTRAN programming and in quality systems who could ask the right questions and uncover the truth?
The answer is that we are out here; thousands of citizen scientists with the skill to uncover the truth.
Bishop Hill
Today's announcements:
* Sir Muir Russell: Climategate e-mails inquiry under way
* UEA: New scientific assessment of [CRU’s key publications by
independent external assessors] announced
1. Here's the URL of the second announcement!:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/New+scientific+assessment+of+climatic+research+publications+announced
UAE: 'New scientific assessment of climatic research publications
announced'
2. The 'manipulation' or 'analysis' of data is usually a
disapproving or approving way of describing the same ordinary
scientific or statistical process.
So Sir Muir Russell's panel could consider it part of their task
to consider the issue that I highlighted in my posting earlier
today under thread 'Russell review to start work': How valid is
the CRU's analysis of the data comprising the instrumental
temperature record?
And you describe member of Sir Muir Russell's panel Professor
Jim Norton as 'vice president for the Chartered Institute for
IT', which to my ears would suggest that he is experienced in
data analysis.
But I fear not.
3. Thus here's what Professor Trevor Davies, UEA
Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Enterprise and Engagement
said about the scope of the independent reassessment of the
CRU's key publications:
'Published papers from CRU have gone through the rigorous and
intensive peer review process which is the keystone for
maintaining the integrity of scientific research. That process
and the findings of our researchers have been the subject of
significant debate in recent months. Colleagues in CRU have
strenuously defended their conduct and the published work and we
believe it is in the interests of all concerned that there
should be an additional assessment considering the science
itself.'
Observe the key words: 'Additional assessment considering the
science itself'!
4. So while the Met Office needed only sixteen days from
20 November, the date that the University of East Anglia
'confirmed the hack', to 5 December 2009 to conclude that it was
necessary to undertake a complete reanalysis, to take three
years, of the CRU's data, it may now be congenially six months
or longer before the UEA's independent external assessors shall
be appointed, shall deliberate, and may or may not in the event
come to the same purely advisory conclusion.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Thursday 11 February 2010
The pdf is quite detailed. http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/CCER%20ISSUES%20FOR%20EXAMINATION%20FINAL.pdf
For example: "Have you been selective in utilizing tree ring evidence from Yamal in Siberia; and if so, what is the justification for selectivity and does the selection influence the deduced pattern of hemispheric climate change during the last millennium?"
Ben Webster has an article in the Times where he is saying there is to be a *second* enquiry set up
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7023520.ece
"The Royal Society, a fellowship of leading scientists, has agreed to help the university select the team which will conduct the new inquiry."
Rees said
"The names being put forward by the society will be acting as individuals, not representatives of the Society and the Society will have no oversight of this independent review."
Adapting to climate change: the space between
science and politics. - Geoffrey Boulton
University of Edinburgh
Presentation from the
DINNER/DISCUSSION SUMMARY
The impact of climate change on Scotland
Held at The Royal Society of Edinburgh on 29th October, 2009
http://www.foundation.org.uk/events/pdf/20091029_Boulton.pdf
Sorry for the length of this post but we need to be clear on the hoax that Muir is perpetrating here.
What matters is not what we think the “Review” should look into but what its remit is. As I see it, this was laid out in a UEA press release:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/CRUreview
H/W key points from that press release and **comments of mine**.
The review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges . . . 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.
** Not only does the remit virtually exclude consideration of the possibility of a leak, the answer to whether data have been “manipulated” will not be found in the e-mails. There sems to be no remit to examine other evidence.**
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.
**The CRU’s “policies and practices” are not in question, it’s the possibly criminal conduct of key staff on Phil Jones’s watch. That the offences are time lasped doesn’t mean that they did not occur, only that they can’t be prosecuted.**
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.
**It’s not whether the CRU complied with UEA practice that matters, it’s whether Jones broke the law and whether the UEA was complicit.**
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.
**We want to make sure that no-one ever again gets any information from the CRU ever again by whatever means. Get an IT Secuirty expert. Oh, we did.**
“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.”
*Sir Muir can call on chums from other vested interests – and that’s just what he’s done. See below.**
[snip]
Sir Muir Russell said: “. . . 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 it follows from that that it’s wrong to stuff the commitee with members of the “Climate Science community” or hangers-on. The “review” team comprises ONLY such people
It’s rigged, it’s a fraud, it’s a cover up, it’s a sham. Take a look at the membership:
+++++
Sir Russell Muir. He advises ScottishPower, a company that profits from the climate change agenda and one that funded distribution of Al Gore’s film to schools. It is a vested interest;
+++++
Dr Philip Campbell. ‘Nature’ is the “Climate Science community’s” house journal and is implicit in the “Hockey Stick” scandal. (There are 21 references to the comic in ’is Grace’s book);
+++++
David Eyton, head of research and technology at BP. The oil giant has a vested interest in the climate change agenda. See e.g.
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/07/bp-renewable-energy-oil-wind
“BP . . . is instead concentrating the bulk of its $8bn (£5bn) renewables spending programme on the US, where government incentives for clean energy projects can provide a convenient tax shelter for oil and gas revenues.” BP is a vested interest.
+++++
Geoffrey Boulton, general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
A climate-change scientist with a fondness for ad hominem attack and ready purveyor of IPCC-type glacier tosh. See:
www.rse.org.uk/enquiries/climate_change/talks_slides/boulton_slides.pdf
esp the atack on David Bellamy who, in the event, seems by and large to have been correct.
+++++
Professor Jim Norton. He is External Board Member, UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; Council Member, Parliamentary IT Committee; Commissioner, IPPR Commission on National Security in the 21st Century; Board Member and Trustee, Foundation for Information Policy Research.
He is not directly involved in the ‘Climate Science community’ but a quick Google shows that he’s happy enough to write on its behalf or in collaboration with, e.g. staff from Newcastle University’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He’s a hanger on at least.
In 40 years of observing the British political scene, it has to be the crudest, most cynical cover up since, well, let me think, hmmmm, err, the Chilcot Inquiry?
Three of the five members - Rod Lyne, Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman - were proponents of the Iraq war. By contrast, nobody on the committee had publicly spoken out against the invasion of Iraq. It was designed to be a whitewash - and it worked.
Bishop Hill
Today's announcements:
* Sir Muir Russell: Climategate e-mails inquiry under way
* UEA: New scientific assessment of [CRU’s key publications by
independent external assessors] announced
1. My fears are confirmed!
Per Sir Muir Russell's panel:
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/CCER%20ISSUES%20FOR%20EXAMINATION%20FINAL.pdf
CLIMATE CHANGE E-MAILS REVIEW
ISSUES FOR EXAMINATION
'5. ... The Team stresses that its remit does not involve
re-evaluation of the scientific conclusions of the CRU work
...'
2. To repeat, the main issue arising out of the publication
of the Climategate E-mails & documents is: How valid is the
CRU's analysis of the data comprising the instrumental
temperature record?
3. But the UEA has waited until now before postponing first
consideration, let alone determination, of the issue even
beyond the launch of the two months-in-gestation Sir Muir
Russell review.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Thursday 11 February 2010
Bishop Hill
Today's announcements:
* Sir Muir Russell: Climategate e-mails inquiry under way
* UEA: New scientific assessment of [CRU’s key publications by
independent external assessors] announced
1. My fears are confirmed!
Per Sir Muir Russell's panel:
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/CCER%20ISSUES%20FOR%20EXAMINATION%20FINAL.pdf
CLIMATE CHANGE E-MAILS REVIEW
ISSUES FOR EXAMINATION
'5. ... The Team stresses that its remit does not involve
re-evaluation of the scientific conclusions of the CRU work
...'
2. To repeat, the main issue arising out of the publication
of the Climategate E-mails & documents is: How valid is the
CRU's analysis of the data comprising the instrumental
temperature record?
3. But the UEA has waited until now before postponing first
consideration, let alone determination, of the issue even
beyond the launch of the two months-in-gestation Sir Muir
Russell review.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
Thursday 11 February 2010
David Eyton, head of research and technology at BP 13 October 2008
In the UK, for example, I represent BP on the Energy Research Partnership, which is a high-level forum bringing together R&D representations from industry, government and academia to ensure that we have a coherent approach to energy innovation.
Another example of the need for this collaborative approach is the formation of the Energy Technologies Institute in the UK, in which BP is a founding member investing almost $100 million over the next 10 years. This is a public/private partnership that funds demonstration projects to accelerate the development of low-carbon energy technologies in selected areas, such as offshore wind and marine power generation.
As a business, BP will of course comply with regulations wherever we operate. Where there are choices as to the form of regulation, we believe the following better enable progress:-
1. Market-based mechanisms. For example, BP is a strong supporter of cap and trade emissions trading, participating in the EU scheme and looking forward to the day when regional schemes are knitted together into a global system.
2. Transitional incentives for alternative energy technologies — giving all technologies a fair chance to compete. Incentives should promote efficiency and taper away as the technologies they support become competitive. This isn’t about picking winners; it’s about bringing the contenders to the starting grid.
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=98&contentId=7048506
Anyone see any conflict of interest?
I found this pearl from David Eyton:
David Eyton, BP group vice president, Research & Technology, said: "The challenge of climate change requires policy development at all levels: global, national and local. Our work with Princeton is an example of BP's commitment to collaborative research, and has already provided a vital contribution to the pace of policy development. We trust that governments will be successful in reaching a consensus for significant action, and we are working to inform their actions based on our experience of low-carbon technologies and businesses."
Geoffrey Boulton:
"Thirty years ago, scientists who studied climate change, and I am one of them, tended to have long hair and very colourful socks. We were regarded as harmless but irrelevant. But the serendipitous investment in their work revealed processes that we now recognise as threatening the future of human society, and the successors to those scientists are playing a crucial role in assessing how we need to adapt."
clink on the links page on the enquiry site, they are missing a couple how about wwf and Nature that would add well to the unbiased list
Interestingly the inquiry site mentions the word hacked at least 9 times,stolen once, but best of all "leaked" is mentioned in the FAQ section under the section "is the review going to investigate climate gate" I expext this was just a slip up which will quickly be changed unless theyve accidently let the cat out of the bag.It also say's that the university of East Anglia is being paid for by the University of East Anglia!!! under the section dealing with reveiw payments.
It appears already the like the IPCC they need someone to data check their site, which I presume is also being funded by UEA and therefore the tax payer. Great start.
Oops I should have proof read my own work as well before hitting the submit button :))
Also interesting to note the links provided on the homepage of the inquiry, which all lead to the usual general warmist views.
I would think that Climate Audit would be a much more appropriate link for those interested in the matter at hand. Muir himself has stated that climate science as such is not part of the inquiry, but still there seems to be a need to...reassure..the public, for lack of a better word, that "the debate is over".
While The panel they have assembled is not one to my liking, I'll play the cards that I have been dealt. That just means more detail, more logic boxes from which they can't escape.
Look, they are creating a public record. If the panel is biased then they will have to live with the verdict of history. Mann's trick, for example, CANNOT bear scrutiny. To be sure they may wave their arms and lift an inch off the ground, but the record will be open. Will they have a defense?
sure. But the job at hand is to make the most solid, least emotional case that can be made.
1. The grafting cannot be justified on scientific terms.
2. Mann himself has said this is something that nobody should do.
3. Even if it were done for purely chartmanship reasons the METHOD should have
been fully disclosed and disclosed IN THE SUPPORTING TEXT.
4. Show JeanS emulation of the data with and without the trick.
5. Those two versions tell a different story. That different story needs to be explained
forthrightly and not waved away by referring to other documents that dont address the problem directly.
6. The problem of divergence has been covered poorly in texts presented to policy makers.
We could go on an on, but there is precious little time.
Remember there is going to be a Parliamentary enquiry in the CRU affair. One of the questions is whther the remit of the CRU enquiry is adequate. There is hope yet!
Can I suggest you guys take a listen to the interview done on Radio 5 today with Gabby Logan, Roger Harrabin and Dr Richard North (a denier). Harrabin gets bitch slapped for stating the emails were stolen and gets ripped into by North.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00qn41s
Starts from about 15 minutes in, worth a listen.
Under FAQ's on new site
Who are the members of the Review team? How did you select these members?
Sir Muir Russell is leading the Independent Review. The Review team has more than 100 years’ collective scientific expertise. They come from a range of scientific backgrounds and were selected for the contribution they are able to make to the issues the Review is looking at. Specifically:
•Professor Geoffrey Boulton has expertise in fields related to climate change and is therefore aware of the scientific approach, through not in the climate change field itself.
•Professor Peter Clarke is an expert in the scientific analysis of large data sets, and computational systems in scientific research.
•David Eyton is a senior industry technologist from outside the academic research community.
•Professor Jim Norton has expertise in corporate governance, computational /communications systems and digital security.
•Dr Phillip Campbell has expertise in science publication and communication and processes of peer review.
Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.
In the 6 o'clock news this evening (Thursday 11th February) the BBC referred to the "leaked" e-mails from the CRU. Are they gradually softening their stance on AGW?
Campbell gone chanel 4 news
I'm surprised that anyone thought anything other than Muir Russell would look for any malfeasance, the stakes are too high. We are in for a total whitewash, and Russell will join Hutton as the laughing stock of the "investigator's" who set out to find the truth.
Nice legacy Sir Muir!
Anyone looked at the BBC article announcing the inquiry? This says that Dr. Campbell has already stood down. See here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8510498.stm
Bishop's initial reaction taken to heart?
MikeT
Yes, but (as m hart has noted) Philip Campbell has resigned. This a major embarrassment for Russell: he's taken 3 months to set this up yet already one of his panel members has withdrawn following this blog's (congratulations BH) posting of his wholly prejudicial interview. And Russell knew nothing of this? Who'll go next? See Channel 4 report - link.
Impressed, hat tip to the Bish.
Report on Newsnight, looks like they might have a bit more!
For what it is worth: Boulton signed this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6950783.ece
'As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes...'
(Though as he is a glaciologist - perhaps he took the report's contents on faith).
John Browne
A Big-Oil Man Gets Religion When John Browne broke ranks on global warming, he did more than shock the industry--he began to convert it
http://tinyurl.com/yfnhcmv
Foreign Affairs
Beyond Kyoto
John Browne
July/August 2004
http://tinyurl.com/yjcwo9o
http://tinyurl.com/yk5r9ed
Nobody is alarmed that "David Eyton" of British Petroleum is there too?
Not only is he a likely ringer, finding in any fashion against AGW would be a breach of his fiduciary obligations to BP. BP is uber-involved with climate change finance, subsidies and politics. I think he is more inappropriate than Campbell.
It is puzzling to me that anyone would believe the Royal Society capable of conducting an impartial review of the science, given their enthusiastic endorsement of the Team's conclusions, and their very public vilification of those who dare to question the truth of AGW.
One would think it more appropriate to hold a public enquiry into how a formerly august institution allowed itself to be hoodwinked by such a shallow, transparent deception as that carried out by CRU and fellow travellers, and how the Royal Society came to believe that appeal to the authority of the IPCC (or ANY authority) is consistent with their motto "Nullus in verbia" - on the word of no one.