Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Mosher in PJs | Main | Intelligence squared debate on scaremongering »

That Boulton IPCC connection

An eagle-eyed commenter has noticed that the CCE Review webpage now carries a new FAQ item addressing the concerns raised at Climate Audit, and echoed here, that Geoffrey Boulton appears to have been involved in the IPCC process.

What they say is this:

Some of the blogs are saying that Professor Geoffrey Boulton is connected to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – is this true?
No, it is not true. Professor Boulton has had no formal contact with the IPCC. He has not been a member of the Panel or made any submissions to it.

First up, it's good that the review panel are responding to concerns raised out here on the blogs. Having sent Sir Muir two emails since the review was announced back in December and having not yet received a reply or even an acknowledgement to either, it's nice to know that there is a way to get a hearing.

However, the statement today still leaves something of a mystery. If Prof Boulton has never been a member of the IPCC or made any submissions to it, why does his old CV say that his contributions to science and research policy include work "As contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change"?


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (33)

"Some of the blogs..." Keep it up; you have them on the run. When they have to respond to things with phrases like, "some of the blogs", whatever comes next raises red flags and induces laughter among even the most cursory of readers.

Feb 17, 2010 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered Commenterdfbaskwill

If Prof Boulton has never been a member of the IPCC or made any submissions to it, why does his old CV say that his contributions to science and research policy include work "As contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change"?

Yeah, why? I hope to get an answer from someone reading this blog.

Feb 17, 2010 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

Follow the money

Feb 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterML

Well, this one is easy to figure out: "Intergovernmental Panels on climate change" would be the IPcc, not the IPCC. Its all in the capitals, probably...

Feb 17, 2010 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Goneaux

Can we expect the report to be as disingenuous as the use of two lower case "c"s? Anyone not questioning assumes the IPCC. Anyone questioning can be told about non-specific Panels on climate change.

You can infer IPCC but claim IPcc. Quite a nice CV "trick". He is obviously quite a bright gentleman. Too clever?

Feb 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

If Prof Boulton has never been a member of the IPCC or made any submissions to it, why does his old CV say [...] Intergovernmental Panels

Jeez. Could it perhaps be that the acronym IPCC does not in fact stand for Intergovernmental Panels (plural) on Climate Change?

I see he has also contributed to 'G8 Preparatory Groups' - in DenierLogic(tm) that must mean he is a member of the G8.

Impressive CV though - I can see why the 'sceptics' are worried that he won't be so easy to fool.

Feb 17, 2010 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank O'Dwyer

Frank, it appears to be a CV "trick" pure and simple. He wanted some of he IPCC "prestige' to rub off on innocent readers of his CV. Most times people get away with it. However, he walked into the spotlight, so he cannot complain about the glare.

The only person he has to blame for this focus on his CV is himself.

It seems to be pretty clear what he was trying to do. "Legally" he is probably safe, "morally" dubious to say the least.

Feb 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

We thought he was corrupt and it turns out he was just dishonest.

Feb 17, 2010 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterTurning Tide

However I will mention one thing. This glare of the blogging spotlight.

Are they are any of us who could survive? Is there nothing in our past?

You have to be careful, because in the unlikely event of him being replaced, who is going to volunteer?

I think a professional CV posted on the Internet is a legitimate target. But such scrutiny is a double edged sword.

Feb 17, 2010 at 3:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

I note that he uses the term 'formal' contact. So what sort of informal contact does he have, or has he had, with the IPCC???

Feb 17, 2010 at 3:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterIan E

Perhaps he`s been giving the rozzers advice on greening the police.

Feb 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM | Unregistered Commenter`ob nob

What's your point, Frank? It is clear from the linked CV that he is claiming to have contributed to the IPCC (not the Independent Whitewash the Police Complaints Commission). Now there are sceptics who have been involved in the IPCC process, but we were assured that:

"None (of The Independent Climate Change Email Review Team) have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"

This is clearly a big fat porkie wrt to the CRU and the IPCC.

Sceptics are not concerned about open minds, they are worried about those with preconceived ideas that will influence his ability to be impartial, and there is more than a little whiff that Geoffrey Boulton has those:

The only person around here who has been easily fooled is you if you are still clinging to the notion that humans are having a measurable or significant influence on the climate due to burning fossil fuels. If you are one of those tragic individuals who has changed their life in obeisance to this fraud, I do have sympathy (we can't all be intelligent), but give it up, man. The longer you cling to this failed theory, the more stupid you look.

Feb 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterDocBud

These various malfeasant whitewash panels labor under the delusion that anyone outside their tight-knit, incestuous orbits credits them with any objectivity whatsoever. Pure PR exercises, they operate manifestly in bad faith, under false pretenses, and everybody knows it.

Face it, the AGW hypothesis has been refuted root-and-branch not by mere inconvenient facts but by fundamental principles of math and physics (Lorenz's Chaos Theory, Boltzman's Second Conservation Law of thermodynamic entropy). Warmists resort to fraud and smears because, quite simply, supporting evidence cannot possibly exist.

In fact, in logic, and in law, one cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof accordingly lies squarely on AGW proponents to validate their theses, not on dissenters to endlessly engage their dishonest, spurious assertions. Let knowledgeable opponents --"skeptics" assumes that AGW has any reality to begin with-- demand answers to defining questions, yea or nay: Only thus will Climate Cultists be forced to show themselves for the peculating frauds they are.

Feb 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Blake

It's obvious the G8 has its own Intergovernmental Panels. One of them happens to be on climate change, on which Boulton is an expert. However, I can't find anything about Preparatory Groups or Intergovernmental Panels on the G8 website.

Feb 17, 2010 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Quite a nice CV "trick" also when one is awarded a honorary degree from Birmingham University according to the Inquiry bio but reading the older CV it seems…. well different, perhaps not quite so honorary.

Feb 17, 2010 at 5:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

It is the morally reprehensible distortion of language, which is regularly deployed by politicians and the establishment. The only purpose for using such language, is to 'deceive'.

Feb 17, 2010 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

The first item on the FAQ says:

The incident saw an anonymous hacker steal 160MB of data from the UEA server (including more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents) and leak it online

Apart from the fact that they are clearly more interested in shooting the messenger, I think they need to decide whether it was hacked or leaked. It can't be both!

Feb 17, 2010 at 5:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Re: Phillip Bratby

It's obvious the G8 has its own Intergovernmental Panels.

And yet you cant find any references to one.

It would be simple enough for either CCE Review or Geoffrey Boulton to give details of this panel, if it exists, so as to clarify the entry on the CV.

Feb 17, 2010 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Does anyone have a list of Prof Boulton's publications? There does not seem to be one available here:

Feb 17, 2010 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernie

Interesting find on Boulton:

MORE than 1,700 UK scientists have signed a petition to fight back against global warming sceptics, who claim climate data has been manipulated.

The petition, organised by the Met Office's chief executive and chief scientist, comes after the row over e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA).

The petition was e-mailed to scientists who work in climate- related fields at more than 100 universities and institutes across the UK. Within four days, more than 1,700 had signed – with about 300 from Scotland. They include Professor Geoffrey Boulton, general-secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and Professor Jan Bebbington, director of the St Andrews Sustainability Institute.

The petition is a response to claims by climate change sceptics that e-mails taken from servers at UEA's Climatic Research Unit showed researchers manipulated evidence to back a theory of man-made global warming.

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.

Feb 17, 2010 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterOslo

An indication of his views can be obtained from these two links:
...provide links to views he has expressed recently, the former as charts he used in a presentation, while the summary contains a precis of his remarks. He is committed to the need to control and reduce CO2.

Feb 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM | Unregistered Commenteroldtimer

hey Bishop.. good work.

I'm on TV with a colonists view of things your side of the pond.|Nixon_Moment:_Steven_Mosher_Follows_The_FOIA/3100/

I have a piece coming out soon on I'll pass you the link

Feb 17, 2010 at 7:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteven Mosher

Having sent Sir Muir two emails since the review was announced back in December and having not yet received a reply or even an acknowledgement to either

This is strange! Didnt Sir Muir want a response from the public? He is being so bloody partisan its not funny. Why doesnt he just go ahead and publish the results he wants his team to find.

Feb 17, 2010 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard

Does anyone here read Terry Pratchett? His latest story, "Unseen Academicals" introduces a statutory evil wizard called Dr Hix. Does this blog have a statutory troll?

Feb 17, 2010 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrian Williams

PS Bish. send him reminders and other email. Keep at him till he responds

Feb 17, 2010 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard

Geoffrey Boulton interview from a United Arab Emirates paper titled “UAE warning: Climate change effects” (28 Feb. 2008)

“…Professor Geoffrey Boulton, a British geologist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” I have no clue how that connection is made. Nice picture and caption.

Some back story to the UAE connection. (2005)

But this is apparently a fairly old quote in a recent story (Jan 21 2009).

Feb 17, 2010 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterThomas H

Boulton is the ringer to give the AGW community control on how this goes and how far it goes.
he is an obvious schill- there is no need at all for him to read anything, here anything or see any evidence. He already knows the answer.
Good luck to you in the UK in shoving his fanny off the train.
Boulton has as much business being on a review of AGW issues as Ken Lay had in audting Enron.

Feb 17, 2010 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

It is common practice in the UK to "talk up" your CV. This is one reason the economy is in such a mess.

Feb 18, 2010 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered Commentermrjohn

Why do we find it necessary to damage things or people in our country, when they have dedicated their working life to the pursuit of knowledge. There appears to be something in the british pysche that means we need to rubbish these people. Are we unable to be proud of hard work and world recognised skill? What a country to live in.

Feb 18, 2010 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterAN

And Hunter - I find your comments about wishing harm to this person quite offensive.

Feb 18, 2010 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterAN


I've taken the view that Hunter's comments are metaphorical rather than an expression of a literala desire to throw Prof Boulton off a train. That said I'd prefer it if some commenters would try to raise the tone of things a little. It's possible to be critical without being crass.

Feb 18, 2010 at 4:23 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill


Nobody is denigrating Prof Boulton's acheivements. The case people are making is that he is not a suitable person to be on the panel (either that or his views should be balanced by someone who opposes the consensus view on AGW).

Feb 18, 2010 at 4:25 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

@Martyn February 17, 2010 "Quite a nice CV "trick" also when one is awarded a honorary degree from Birmingham University according to the Inquiry bio but reading the older CV it seems…. well different, perhaps not quite so honorary."

No - everything is right and proper on that point.

Boulton has *two* DSc's from Bham Univ - one awarded in 1980, earned by submission of a portfolio of published papers, and an honorary DSc, awarded in 2007.

Feb 18, 2010 at 7:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Ackroyd

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>