Wednesday
Feb172010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Sir Muir on independence
Feb 17, 2010 Climate: Russell I can't remember seeing this before, but even if it has been mentioned, it's worth reminding ourselves of what has been said. This is what Sir Muir said shortly after his appointment as head of the CCE Review:
"Given the nature of the allegations, it is right someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."
It's possible he has changed his mind.
Reader Comments (12)
Well, not necessarily. someone of that degree of independence may be present on the committee to look/advise, just not all of them.
It's looking more and more as if Sir Muir is nothing more than a figurehead for Boulton's CCE Review.
"It's possible he has changed his mind."
Your Grace, he never meant in the sense that you or I - or any non-Team member, for that matter - would take to be his meaning.
This review is, in it's own imperfect way, a rather interesting microcosmic projection of the wider AGW debate.
Are they not, in fact, hijacking the peer-review process? Are they not, in fact, fixing the review panel with friendly faces who will - and one can be most sure of this - apportion blame so widely, and thus thinly, as to negatively affect the career prospects of no one at all - least of all themselves?
For they are men of honour, you see. They claim as much, and so their claims must be true. The same "logic" will no doubt apply to the "findings" of the review, also.
Are there not members of the Review committee who meet this prescription?
To Frank O'D, if you read this.
"The science is settled and will stand up to any scrutiny."
Could we perhaps have your nominations for a panel that will carry weight, authority and, perhaps most importantly, carry the trust of both parties?
Dennis,
I'm not sure who you're quoting. It certainly isn't me.
I don't think there is any panel that would satisfy 'sceptics', unless they told them what they want to hear.
Let's say they put Roy Spencer, McIntyre, Watts, whoever you want, on the panel, and after due deliberation they all turned round and said 'actually guys, seems like this email thing is all trumped up nonsense, sorry'.
What would be the 'sceptic' reaction? They'd probably assume they'd been lied to, threatened or paid off. They'd find something. The evidence for it would then be found if possible, though not of course required.
This isn't entirely speculation on my part as there is a fair bit of precedent for this kind of thing. For example, shortly after the crew at wattsup had engaged in a lot of chortling about the recent snow and cold in this NH winter, a certain southern baptist arch-'sceptic' had to get up and break the bad news that UAH had just posted the warmest January in the satellite record.
Watching 'sceptics' trying to process this information was absolutely fascinating. Naturally, the problem couldn't be Roy, and the problem couldn't be that it was, you know, actually the warmest January on record. That would mean that they couldn't post pictures of snow as conclusive proof of the worldwide commie plot anymore. So some other fact had to be changed - it had to be some kind of mistake, or ideally that poor Roy was somehow hobbled or lied to. Somehow these satellites had to be mistaken, or rigged by NASA, Jim Hansen, maybe Al Gore. One guy even wondered if the satellites had been hacked. What panel in the universe could possibly change the mind of someone like that?
This sort of thing is actually taught in business class. Each party to the discussions puts together a list naming acceptable experts. The lists are exchanged, or pooled. Any names on all the lists get selected. If no names appear in common on all lists, then various ways of "blackballing" the most extreme candidates are used. ...
Letting one party stack the deck is considered un-businesslike.
Bish remind him. Throw those words back at him. He said he would be fair. Remind him that he said so.
"I don't think there is any panel that would satisfy 'sceptics', unless they told them what they want to hear." - Frank O'Dwyer substitute the word sceptics for yourself and you have got that right
Doesn't the Review Team website providing the following links suggets that the team in its entirety has a predetermined view on climate change:
"What is climate change and why is important?
You may find the following links helpful:
The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/
The Met Office: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/
Directgov: http://www.direct.gov.uk
BBC Weather: http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/climate
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change"
http://www.cce-review.org/FAQs.php
No attempt at balance, no acknowledgement that there are scientists who disagree with AGW. Why not link, inter alia, to WUWT, ClimateAudit and this blog?
I wouldn't say that the BP chap David Eyton is exactly impartial and holds no views.
'In a statement released this week, BP Research and Technology Group vice president David Eyton emphasized the importance of scientific research.
“The challenge of climate change requires policy development at all levels: global, national and local,” Eyton said. “Our work with Princeton is an example of BP’s commitment to collaborative research, and has already provided a vital contribution to the pace of policy development.”
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/10/17/21842/
David Eyton was also at:
THE INNOVATION ECONOMY
Date: 2 June 2009
Venue: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts, Brussels
He was involved in the workshop: 16:30–17:30 Plenary: Innovation for a greener planet
How global collaboration in innovation can solve climate change, develop new energy sources and promote sustainability.
http://www.sciencebusiness.net/events/innovation_economy2009.php