CCE panel prelaunch minutes

Muir Russell's panel have published the minutes of a prelaunch meeting from a month ago. It's not hugely exciting but a few points are worth making:

• They have two PR people on the team
• Boulton's history at UEA was discussed, but Philip Campbell didn't raise the subject of Nature's part in the back story
• "It was recognised that the questions were to be answered with respect to the standards and practices of the day".
• "It was noted that it had historically been difficult to secure funding for curation of data"
• "Muir agreed to approach the ICO in order to clarify where the review stood with respect to FOI"
• "William, Kate and Jim agreed to speak about how submissions and correspondence to the review should be filtered. A protocol for this should be prepared."

Does anyone else get a vague sense that solutions are being worked out?

(As an aside, I might point out that protecting the PDF file so that the contents can't be copied and pasted is rather irritating). [Update: I've got a work around for this now - thanks]

http://www.cce-review.org/Meetings.php

Update on Mar 2, 2010 by Bishop Hill

I'm grateful to the correspondent who emailed to point out that Kate Moffatt, one of the PR people on Russell's team, is an employee of Luther Pendragon, whose clients include Pew Charitable Trusts and Climate Strategies, both well known to climate watchers.

Comments

[John Graham-Cumming]

The copy/paste issue can easily be overcome. On my Mac the built in PDF viewer doesn't 'respect' the copy/paste restriction.

[ScientistForTruth]

Most people just use a PDF viewer, which is pretty limited, but the pukka Adobe software enables all sorts of possibilities, including revising the text!

[Mark]

Print the document to a new pdf. Open it. Apply OCR and you have a new, copyable pdf.

There may be an easier way, but this works.

[BH: I've been looking for a workaround like this for ages. Thanks very much]

[Stonyground]

It appears that these people are trying to make life difficult for anyone who wishes to share their data, isn't that kind of behaviour frowned upon these days?

[martyn]

Don't you know Stony its standard procedure, well standard since yesterday.

[LN]

The text is below:

Note of Actions from CRU Review Group Meeting (Teleconference), 4 February 2010
Participants:
Sir Muir Russell
Professor Jim Norton
Professor Peter Clarke
Professor Geoffrey Boulton
Mr David Eyton
Dr Philip Campbell
Mr Mike Granatt
Ms Kate Moffat
Mr William Hardie
Updates
It was agreed that when the Review was launched there was a need to ensure that the University of
East Anglia (UEA) press office had access to the same briefing material as the Review Group.
Kate agreed to provide members of the Review Group with internet links to the major press
coverage related to the Review. She added that the UEA press office was content to share their press
cuttings with the Review Group. Kate to maximise utility and minimise duplication of material
provided.
Our approach
Muir and Mike agreed to draft a synthesis of Geoffrey’s, Peter’s and Jim’s papers, in order to
formulate and set out the issues to be explored by the Review Group. The draft would be circulated
to Review Group members for comment. It would be important to ensure that all the points in the
remit were reflected in the synthesis paper. The Review Group also wanted to ensure that there was
opportunity to ask CRU ‘why’ certain things were done, not simply ‘what’ they did.
Essentially, the new paper would represent a clear statement of the issues which would be put to
the CRU to address. At the same time, the statement would be made public and published on the
Review Group’s website and members of the public would have the opportunity to comment
whether there were other issues relevant to the remit of the Review.
It was recognised that the questions were to be answered with respect to the standards and
practices of the day. It should be borne in mind that this would require a degree of peer-review for
validation purposes.
In terms of statistical matters the Group was concerned about crossing the line and being drawn into
analysis of the statistics and entire data sets which have been applied incrementally and over a long
timeframe. However, it was recognised that the recommendations of the Review Group could
present opportunities for others to examine the application of statistical methods and analysis.
David agreed to find out more about the Penn State investigation and the examination of the
American Physical Society (APS) 2007 statement on climate change. The Review Group could point
to the work which was being undertaken.
Data issues
Jim agreed to generate a question around the issue of data processes, organisation and preservation
of data. It was noted that it had historically been difficult to secure funding for the curation of data.
Peter Clarke had summarised his first impressions of the CRUTEM (and HadCRUT) datasets, focussed
on the information which was in the public domain and what could be replicated and verified from
the information. Peter agreed to continue his work, examine other sources and papers identified
and try to form the basis of a question to be put to the CRU.
It was noted that Peter Clarke knew Professor S. Tett, who was one of the contributors to one of the
dataset sources he had looked at.
Workplan
Muir agreed to re-work the current workplan in order that it outlined what would be done and by
whom, in the context that the Review Group intended to have conclusions by the Spring of 2010.
Muir would prepare a short memorandum, based on the modified work plan, which would be
submitted to the UK Parliament Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into the CRU, setting out
what the Review Group would be doing. The deadline of Wednesday 10 February was noted.
The Review Group suggested that it would be useful to have the input of a project manager to
ensure that actions and schedules included in a revised work plan were fulfilled. Mike said he would
try to identify a suitable individual.
Launch Arrangements
It was agreed that the launch should take place at the Science Media Centre (SMC) on Thursday 11
February 2010 (a.m.). Those who would attend: Muir Russell, Philip Campbell, Peter Clarke, Jim
Norton and Geoffrey Boulton. Although David Eyton was unavailable to attend he said he would
ensure that a representative of BP’s press office was present and enquiries about BP’s involvement
should be filtered through its press office.
All Review members should produce biographies of 300 words and send to Kate. It was noted that
Geoffrey had worked at the UEA in the past and this would be made clear at the launch.
Mike and Kate agreed to confirm the launch date with the SMC and expand upon the possible lines
of questioning which the Review Group could face.
William to draft a short publication scheme encompassing issues related to FOI/ publication of
submissions. It was clear that there was a need for clear criteria in the publication scheme. The
Review Group agreed that it would operate as openly and transparently as possible. It was
establishing a website which would eventually display all of the submissions received,
correspondence, analyses and conclusions. The aim would be to publish all submissions received
quickly, unless there were wholly exceptional reasons to delay, for example legal issues.
Muir agreed to approach the ICO in order to clarify where the Review stood with respect to FOI.
Website
The term ‘submissions’ rather than ‘evidence’ should be used. There should also be a section termed
‘correspondence’ which could incorporate more general material received e.g. the letter from Lord
Lawson and Review Group responses to such matters. The intention was to upload a transcript and
MP3 recording of the launch to the website. Mike agreed to investigate the structure of the website
further, including the ‘search’ facility.
William, Kate and Jim agreed to speak about how submissions and correspondence to the Review
should be filtered. A protocol for this should be prepared.

[Ian E]

"It was recognised that the questions were to be answered with respect to the standards and practices of the day".

Oh well, if it's ancient history, then I guess we'll shortly get an apology from Gordon Brown

[Viv Evans]

B*stards ... (sorry, had to be said!)

Therefore, thanks, LN, for giving u the whole document.

This I found interesting, in view of yesterday's hearing of the Parliamentary Select Committee:

'In terms of statistical matters the Group was concerned about crossing the line and being drawn into analysis of the statistics and entire data sets which have been applied incrementally and over a long timeframe.'

So - will they now re-think their attitude about not getting drawn into stats analysis?

I think probably not: these are all people who look to be frightened of stats anyway, and even more so of the cans of worms such analysis might open.

[martyn]

Standards and practices, are we talking BS5750 and ISO9000, ISO9001 etc etc or what?

[Chris S]

Maybe I missed it, but does anyone know if the panel are based at, and work out of UEA.

[Bishop Hill]

Their mail box is in Edinburgh. It's likely that they are working out of the Royal Society of Edinburgh which is just around the corner from the mailbox address. The RSE is providing the secretariat to the inquiry. Boulton and probably Russell are based in Scotland.

[Richard Drake]

There's the same 'trick' with the timing here as with the 10 Feb deadline for submissions to the Select Committee. They didn't let us as potential submitters know anything about what they were planning, including the recruitment of Boulton and Campbell, until a day after the deadline, 11 Feb. In this case they're releasing further information the day after the Select Committee hearings - minutes of a meeting on 4 Feb, for goodness sake! We could and should have had all of this well before 10 Feb, to mull over for our submissions. The Select Committee itself should certainly have had this info by the time the oral evidence was heard. Is there any evidence that the MPs on the committee had seen it before yesterday?

It seems really petty, tiny little 'tricks' to try no doubt to annoy the opposition. I don't advise getting annoyed, because the flow is all against these guys in the mainstream media now, as well as the blogs. But it's still blatantly unprofessional and underhand. Count me as unimpressed.

[GSW]

I don't know if this has been covered elsewhere, but I've tried to track down some info on the other names on the list.

Mike Granatt (Ex speakers spin Doctor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Granatt
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3423611.ece

"Granatt, 57, now a partner in public relations firm Luther Pendragon, was director-general of the government information service under Tony Blair and fought to maintain the impartiality of the service amid constant battles with Alastair Campbell. "

Apparently he is known as a "straight dealer". Sounds promising.

Kate Moffat
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/kate-moffat/19/A87/802
Also with Luther Pendragon. Mike Granatt's runner?

Also, there is William Hardie at the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Consultations officer)
http://www.rse.org.uk/organisation/staff.htm
So this could be a Boulton link and hence the Edinburgh mailbox.

[Jack Hughes]

Bish,

I can copy text from the pdf in my browser. Safari on an Apple Mac.

[Bishop Hill]

I've posted an interesting update.

[Peewit]

I was going to include a fiscal trail but perhaps that sidetracks too much. Link Edinburgh, supercomputer, Tyndall Centre, Met Office, UEA, CRU, TERI, Hulme of the protesteth too much, etc.
Junkscience.com have some of the docs. if you want to dig and know some things.

"School of GeoSciences
The University of Edinburgh
Grant Institute, The King's Buildings
West Mains Road
EDINBURGH EH9 3JW
Phone: +44 (0) 131 6519092, FAX: +44 (0) 131 668 3184"

Same email
"3. Gabi Hegerl, University of Edinburgh. Expert on detection and attribution of
externally-forced climate change. Co-Convening Lead Author of "Understanding and
Attributing Climate Change" chapter of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. "

-- East Anglia emails

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=437

http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613
"You can download my vita here and Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change products I have contributed to"

How far back?
This is 1996
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html

Very recent.

Two signing names on a list VERY CLEARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EMAILS IN QUESTION

"Dr Gabi Hegerl Edinburgh University"
"Prof Geoffrey Boulton Edinburgh University"

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics/2009/12/hacked-climate-emails-update.html

"Statement from the UK science community

The criticism over the emails has led to the following statement issued and signed by more than 1700 scientists (the full list of signees is available on the extended page).
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method. The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

"Prof Geoffrey Boulton Edinburgh University"

[Mac]

Speaks volumes for the integrity, competence and professionalism of Luther Pendragon that they failed miserably to check the facts surrounding Campbell's and Boulton's activism on Climate Change and their views on Climategate.

The credibility of the CCE panel has been damaged from day one and they have been on the back foot ever since.

Time to call in Max Clifford.

[GSW]

Does anybody have any thoughts about this quote from Sir Muir,

"to start trying to balance scepticism and other opinions on this review group. Where would that end? What kind of debates would one then have when one is trying to talk about the objective things we are all talking about today?"

I would have thought that producing a 'balanced' report, rather than one purely 'from one side of the belief spectrum', would be worth the effort. It is an 'Independent' review, not one dictated by like minded people.

[Mac]

GSW

It shows how muddled this review has become. It is supposed to be about 'process'.

It is clearly unscientific to share data with those uncritical of the science in question and not to share data with those interested in replicating and verifying the very same science that may well lead to criticism.

It is clearly unscientific to act as biased gate-keepers of journals based on whether or not you are expressing criticism or scepticism on a particular aspect of settled science.

If as claimed that it is standard practice to employ double-standards in sharing of data in the climate community and in the peer review process then you would think scepticism has a place in this review.

Unfortunately the make-up of the panel means we will have a whitewash, a bodged whitewash, but still a whitewash.

[GSW]

Your points are well made Mac. I don't think UEA & Sir Muir realise, but they are only continuing the mindset that got them into this situation in the first place;

Sceptic papers in the peer reviewed literature. Where would that end?

Sceptics looking at your data & methods. Where would that end?

A BBC weather man asking where is Global Warming?. Where would that end?

A Sceptic on the Independent review panel. Where would that end?

I'm an optimist, they can't carry on doing this forever. Public and MSM support for this way of doing things is waring a bit thin.