Wednesday
Feb172010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Geoffrey Boulton and the IPCC
Feb 17, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell The news of the day is the discovery by Climate Audit readers that until quite recently Geoffrey Boulton's CV included in the information that he was involved in the IPCC process. This detail, together with the fact that he had worked at UEA for twenty years, was omitted from the version of his CV that was presented to the press when the Russell Review panel was announced.
While the omission of his time at UEA was explained to the press corps, the fact of his involvement with the IPCC was not, an oversight that is problematic in view of the panel's statements that none of the panellists had IPCC links.
Reader Comments (17)
Somehow I'm not that enthusiastic about the fifth time we find some relevant dirt around this fellow... Kinda lost it feeling around the third time, you know.
What I find interesting is whilst this may be an attempt to protect the 'reputation' of the CRU, the constant bringing of the name 'UEA' into the blogosphere/mediasphere is having the opposite effect on the reputation of the University.
The Sir Humphrey approach might bring the required short term result, but reputation of the UEA is suffering by the day.
I know most university activities are performed in parallel universes. These media activities though have to be performed in our universe. Students/post-grads/lecturers are going to think twice about what destination button they press on the Warp drive.
It is second tier university and is proving it on a daily basis. The politicians do not care about UEA, just as long as the damage to the CRU is limited in the short term.
The UEA is way way out of its league. Relegation threatens.
The blogosphere is now doing to the inquiry what it did to the science: exposing the subterfuge and bad faith that make it an unlikely means of arriving at the truth.
The Russell inquiry should now be abandoned and a new team selected. It is essential that this team not be close to the IPCC, CRU, University of East Anglia, The Met Office or, indeed Climate Science. I do not think it necessary to have a background in Climate Science to be capable of investigating the central allegations of data manipulation, methodological bias and corruption of the peer review process. I would like to see at least one expert in statistical modelling from an unrelated field and a prominent authority on the history of science and scientific method.
Excellent post Nicholas. I agree. As it stands it is deeply suspect. Too much mud has stuck already.
Suggestion for a new thread: "Given that the Russell Review is a hoax, should skeptics make submissions to it?" I'm very interested in viewpoints on this.
Agreed. The Inquiry itself is becoming the news item, rather than the subject of its deliberations. The Alistair Campbell moment. A clear sign of failure, and it should be disbanded.
"Given that the Russell Review is a hoax, should skeptics make submissions to it?"
Submissions should be made on the universal justice principle of a fair inquiry. In a democracy you have to assume that you will get a fair hearing somewhere down the line. Submit the evidence now and somewhere and somehow it will have its moment of truth.
Who would have thought resignation letters from many years ago would have a bearing now? Or a Telegraph article from 1995? Or any number of documents that are being trawled up by resourceful 'deniers'?
Get the information out now. Whether the inquiry uses it or not is moot. That information will serve some purpose at some point down the line.
Always remember Watergate. Sometimes the dots cannot all be joined at once, and some do not show on the page until later. Patience.
Why such a strong Scottish connection? Do we owe someone something? Or is it Scotsmen owing Scotsmen?
JC, it is a fact that student applications have dramatically increased at UEA since this saga began.
Boultons special Research Interest is in Glaciergate:
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=437
Interesting.
JC, it is a fact that student applications have dramatically increased at UEA since this saga began.
I will take your word for the increase, but as most Ucas submissions are done before Xmas and the deadline for many courses is mid-Jan, I am not sure as to the 'total fact' of your statement. A ever, I stand to be corrected.
I was talking about long-term damage. However, if the old adage about bad publicity rings true here, then maybe more Universities should have a media event such as this.
Can you imagine any Universities taking that option?
Ps. My name is Pieter Bruinsma, just for the record. Yours?
JC, it is a fact that student applications have dramatically increased at UEA since this saga began.
Actually maybe you are on to something. Perhaps other academic institutions are worse that than UEA re scientific rigour? Perhaps they are an academic beacon in a sea of mediocrity? That is what is making them so attractive to students?
Sorry I missed that possibility. Thanks for helping me understand.
Student applications have dramatically increased at all UK universities. There's a recession.
Student applications have dramatically increased at all UK universities. There's a recession.
And according to the latest funding news the entire 2010-2011 entry year will be over subscribed. Filling places will not be a problem. The point is whether students think of the UAE as a primary choice, or as a fall-back option.
I cannot answer that question. This 'event' certainly cannot help UEA in improving the average 'quality' of their students, however much "Alistair Campbell" spin one wants to put on it.
Actually it is a complex system between funding, quality of staff, students, previous courses, post grad researches. What they should do is create a computer model. They then create an "Adverse Media Event" factor. Feed it into the model and see if they get positive runaway feedback on UEA prestige rating?
Bish, I think there must be some genuine mistake here, given the recent addition to the FAQ Inquiry page, at the bottom:
http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php
Re the FAQ. Yes perhaps technically they are correct. No IPCC contact.
As contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change
If it is a question of semantics I think he gets away with it; I P c c (in honour of Monty Python: "Oh that IPCC? I just meant Panels between governments generally". BUT he was certainly being disingenuous by giving the impression to the reader that it is was the IPCC.
He might get away with it on a technicality this time, but his reputation is not enhanced. Lying on a CV is a serious offence for senior positions. Can we expect such language tricks in the final report?
The increased number of applications to the UEA are probably for foreign intelligence agents so they can collect data to disrupt Copenhagen 2.
Or as Bishop says, a symptom of our economic woes. It may also be increased interest due to the possibility of green jobs being created. UEA used to have a good reputation for climate science, now it may be tainted. Future years applications will show whether it's reputation has been damaged I think.