Long-term followers of the climate debate (and those who have read the Hockey Stick Illusion) will remember the NAS panel on the Hockey Stick, and how Bette Otto-Bliesner, the scientist who occupied the office next door to Caspar Ammann, was appointed to the panel, a move that called into question the panel's independence.
We've already had questions raised about the independence of another of Sir Muir Russell's panellists, Geoffrey Boulton, the ex-UEA man who has spoken out in favour of the global warming consensus, but I'm grateful to a couple of readers for filling in some more details.
Cameron Rose makes this observation:
I note that Geoffrey Boulton is based at the University of Edinburgh, with an office at the Grant Institute at the King's Buildings in Edinburgh. Interestingly, Gabi Hegerl, who, I understand, is a member of the 'Hockey Team' and features in the CRU emails, and was a key author of AR4, has an office on the same floor in the same building 3 doors along.
Of course, that does not mean he's not independent, but it hardly inspires confidence.
Another reader points me to an article that Boulton wrote last year (Link- pay site - I'm trying to get a copy) entitled...
Just how much more evidence of climate change do you need?
...while Benny Pieser, writing in his CCNet newsletter, notes this quote from Boulton back in 2005 (I'm not sure of the source)
The argument regarding climate change is over.
I think it behoves me to point out to readers once more the declaration on the review's 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.