Friday
Feb122010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Peiser and Whitehouse on Russell
Feb 12, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell Benny Peiser and David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation have a piece up calling for a complete overhaul of the review.
They're not wrong.
Reader Comments (5)
It is a joke, and was one from the outset.
It's obvious why Russell was chosen and he has done what he was employed to do.
Can anyone really expect, when the government is fanatically behind AGW, anything different.
As long as Gordon Brown is at no. 10, there will be nothing but whitewash.
We need people like Nigel Lawson to stir opinion so that MPs from all disciplines recognise the significance of this to the country and do the honourable thing and demand an honest and independent enquiry.
Brown has no scruples (as evidenced by the recent revelations of his behaviour).
All we will get is more crooked behaviour to support earlier crooked behaviour.
This really is a crucial moment is the country's history.
I don't see how Boulton can be neutral in an inquiry on the integrity of climate science
since he
1. Boulton has *ALREADY* stood-up for the integrity of climate science after climategate.
2. Has expressed concern the effect of climategate would be to derail a deal at Copenhagen.
(and yes, 3. Believes the science is strongly indicative of AGW)
The Scotsman reported on 11 Dec 2009
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Copenhagen-Summit-Scientists-unite-to.5903406.jp
Here are 5 interesting paragraphs -- (Haszeldine is a colleague of Boulton's at Edinburgh although this is not stated in the article).
In short, both Boulton and Haszeldine are virtually on record as saying there is no problem - although unfortunately there are no direct quotes of them in the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the scientists who signed the Met Office petition told The Scotsman they were wary of adding "flames to the fire", but thought it was right to stand up for the integrity of climate research.
Prof Boulton said he was worried the scandal might have damaged progress on thrashing out a deal to tackle global warming at the summit in Copenhagen.
He reiterated that the science shows a very strong likelihood greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change. "Of course we are not certain; one can be certain about nothing. However, if there was even a 50 per cent chance of a man-eating lion being outside the door, you wouldn't go out."
Professor Stuart Haszeldine, an expert in carbon capture and storage at the University of Edinburgh, also signed. He said:
"This is an attempt by a large group of science experts who have very good professional and personal ability to say that they believe in the work that has been done and they don't believe it has been deliberately falsified."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They're not wrong."
That will be a nice change for them.
With regards to Sir Muir Russell impartiality, why not check out the Climate Change credentials of the The David Hume Institute and Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland.
Enter one,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Eileen Mackay (Lady Russell)
May I make a suggestion?
As we know, all the Hockey stick graphs came from the same dodgy proxy data, manipulated by now disproven statistical sleights of hand (hat tip to this Board and Author, for his excellent book.)
The warmists have hidden behind the need to protect raw temperature data from 100s of countries, but yet they reveal such material to 'friendly' peer- reviewers. Strange that.
(NB Is it worth showing Fig 9.2 on page 254 of your book? It's an eye-opener!)
Anyway, my suggestion is simple. Allow a select group of sceptics full access to the raw data, programming, and outputs / working notes, under secure conditions (e.g. they cannot copy or publish the data, but may analyse it via a secure portal on the web). Give our gifted climate auditors three months to publish their findings - which would of course include (a) a report and audit the input data quality (b) the statistical analysis, adjustments etc of Prof Jones (c) the veracity and confidence levels of his conclusions.
There's our challenge! Would the warmists dare to accept it?
Doesn't the world deserve to know if AGW is a threat, or an illusion?