OK readers, you have work to do.
Submissions for the Russell review are due by the end of the month and it will require some concentrated effort by the community to put something together so quickly.
Here's the Issues for Examination document published by Sir Muir and his team. The first question is "Does this cover everything it should do?" The document covers several broad areas, with more detailed questions under each heading. Are there any broad areas missing? Are there more detailed questions to be added under existing headings?
Here are the broad headings.
1. The allegation of ignoring potential problems in deducing palaeotemperatures from tree ring data that might undermine the validity of the so-called “hockey-stick” curve.
2. The allegation that CRU has colluded in attempting to diminish the significance of data that might appear to conflict with the 20th century global warming hypothesis
3. It is alleged that proxy temperature deductions and instrumental temperature data have been improperly combined to conceal mismatch between the two data series
4. It is alleged that there has been an improper bias in selecting and adjusting data so as to favour the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and details of sites and the data adjustments have not been made adequately available
5. It is alleged that there have been improper attempts to influence the peer review system and a violation of IPCC procedures in attempting to prevent the publication of opposing ideas.
6. The scrutiny and re-analysis of data by other scientists is a vital process if hypotheses are to rigorously tested and improved. It is alleged that there has been a failure to make important data available or the procedures used to adjust and analyse that data, thereby subverting a crucial scientific process.
7. The keeping of accurate records of datasets, algorithms and software used in the analysis of climate data.
8. Response to Freedom of Information requests.
Answers in the comments please.