Fantasy inquiry team

OK, so if Sir Muir and his team are no good, who should be on the panel? - people who are suitably qualified in the areas the inquiry are going to examine, but without the environmentalist baggage. Here's a few thoughts:

IT areas: John Graham-Cumming has suggested himself as a candidate and he would certainly be acceptable to both sides.

Paleoclimate: someone at CA suggested Atte Korhola. Perhaps not acceptable to the other side though.

Statistics: Ian Jolliffe?

Peer review: Harvey Markovitch? Ex-BMJ - expertise in research integrity and peer review ethics

Comments

[Drew]

Freeman Dyson, FRS

The enquiry needs someone with clarity of thought, wide ranging scientific understanding and unlikely to be worried what anyone else thinks of them. I believe Prof Dyson fits this profile, and the fact he is a long time Fellow of the Royal Society would only add to the fun. In the absence of Richard Feynman I can't think of many better qualified.

[Bishop Hill]

Isn't he too closely associated with the sceptic side?

[John Graham-Cumming]

Yes, I'd be willing to help because I think it would be fascinating to get to the bottom of it, but I suspect I don't have quite the skill set they are looking for. On the IT side I think they are looking to recommend policies and practices, and not actually get into looking deeply at the code. I'd definitely be better at staring at code, than coming up with a big policy document.

[Eddie O]

I would recommend Judith Curry who regularly engages in open debate at Climate Audit. I know she is not British but does that need to be an obstacle?
Ed

[AWatcher]

I thought the purpose of this inquiry was not to delve into the science questions, but to look at things such as whether data had been hidden, deleted, or manipulated, whether the peer review process had been subverted, and other such matters.

So how much climate science is needed here? Maybe a little, but surely the emphasis should be on people who know about peer review process, data publishing and archiving requirements, complex system modelling, and statistics... surely there must be thousands of British people knowledgeable in these areas who have not taken a position for, or against, AGW or the CRU.

[David S]

JGC I think you are being too modest. The "Team" needs a range of competences rather than a group of generalists, and in particular they need your technical insight to make any kind of rational decision on the policy issues. If they do not understand what has really gone on, or like Boulton have already taken a stance on the subject, then they are bound to get it wrong.

[Bishop Hill]

JG-C

Maybe you should be on the Royal Society panel then (they'd have to appoint you a fellow first though).

[TCO]

Someone from a completely different background would be good. Maybe an accident investigator or the like. Too obvious a skeptic would be unacceptible to the other side...and to be honest a lot of the skeptics are biased hacks.

[Tony Hansen]

TCO,
Too obvious a 'warmer' would be unacceptible to the other side...and to be honest a lot of the 'warmers' are biased hacks'.

[anon]

Choose one from each side of the debate for each discipline. Maybe then, we could finally have the debate that was allegedly settled.

[Richard]

Bish plug away at Sir Muir. You have unsheathed your sword. This is the crusades again. The roundheads against the cavaliers. You are our champion. Do not fail or falter.