Bishop Hill Royal Society panel announced
Mar 22, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Royal Society The Royal Society panel that is going to examine the scientific aspects of the Climategate affair has been announced. This is the press release from UEA (via a reader - it doesn't appear on the UEA website at the moment).
Lord Oxburgh FRS, a former chair of the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, is to chair an independent Scientific Assessment Panel to examine important elements of the published science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. His appointment has been made on the recommendation of the Royal Society, which has also been consulted on the choice of the six distinguished scientists who have been invited to be members of the panel. The panel will have access to any publications or materials it requests, and all information considered will be listed in the Report. The University, in consultation with the Royal Society, has suggested that the panel looks in particular at key publications, from the body of CRU's research referred to in the UEA submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Announcing the appointment, Prof Trevor Davies, the University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, said: "CRU's scientific papers have been examined by scientists from other institutions through the peer review process before being accepted for publication by international journals. We have no reason to question the effectiveness of this process. Nevertheless, given the concerns about climate research expressed by some in the media, we decided to augment the Muir Russell review with an independent assessment of CRU's key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment. "We are delighted that a renowned scientist of the standing of Lord Oxburgh has agreed to chair this very strong independent panel and await its findings with great interest. Colleagues in CRU have committed themselves to providing any support required by the panel." The panel members are: Prof Huw Davies, Professor of Physics at the Institute for Atmospheric & Climate Science at ETH Zürich; Prof Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Prof Lisa Graumlich, Director of the School of Natural Resources and the Environment at The University of Arizona; Prof David Hand, Professor of Statistics in the Department of Mathematics at Imperial College; Prof Herbert Huppert, Professor of Theoretical Geophysics at the University of Cambridge; and Prof Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge. "The shadow hanging over climate change and science more generally at present makes it a matter of urgency that we get on with this assessment. We will undertake this work and report as soon as possible," said Lord Oxburgh. The panel will meet in Norwich in April and will have the opportunity to see original data and speak to those who did the work. It comprises of scientists who use techniques similar to those used in CRU but who largely apply them to other areas of research, as well as those with experience in climate or related research. Prof Davies said: "Our concern has been to bring together a distinguished group of independent scientists who understand the difference between assertion and evidence, and are familiar with using the latter to judge the validity of conclusions arising from science research. The panel members have the right mix of skills to understand the complex nature of climate research and the discipline-based expertise to scrutinise CRU's research. How they do this will be entirely down to the panel. "The choice of scientists is sure to be the subject of discussion, and experience would suggest that it is impossible to find a group of eminent scientists to look at this issue who are acceptable to every interest group which has expressed a view in the last few months. Similarly it is unlikely that a group of people who have the necessary experience to assess the science, but have formed no view of their own on global warming, could be found. "We are grateful to the Royal Society for helping us to identify such a strong panel and to the members for dedicating their time to this important matter." Their report will be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor. His response, and the report itself, together with the list of publications assessed,will be published in full. Notes to Editors: 1. Lord Oxburgh is not available for interview at present, but interviews may be arranged with Prof Trevor Davies via the University of East Anglia Press Office by calling 01603 592764. 2. Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool) trained originally as a geologist and has worked as an academic, a civil servant and in business. Between 1987 and 1993 he was Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence and from 1993 to 2001 Rector of Imperial College. He was non-executive Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading until the Company merged with Royal Dutch Petroleum to form Royal Dutch Shell in 2005. He is currently President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewables. He is a former Chairman of the Trustees of the Natural History Museum and of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. He is Foreign member of the US, Australian and German Academies of Science. 3. The panel: Prof Huw Davies was Professor of Atmospheric Dynamics at the ETH in Zürich where he served as both Director of the Institute for Atmospheric & Climate Science and Head of the Department of Environmental Sciences. He graduated from the University of Wales, studied for his doctorate at Imperial College London, and lectured at the University of Reading. He is a member of the Academia Europaea, and was President of the International Association of Meteorology & Atmospheric Science (IAMAS). Currently he is a member of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), and on the executive committee of the International THORPEX programmes. He was listed as a reviewer in the 1990 IPCC WG1 report. His research is in the fields of atmospheric dynamics and short-term climate variability. Prof Kerry Emanuel is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was elected a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences in 2007. He specialises in atmospheric convection, tropical cyclones and the mechanisms acting to intensify hurricanes, coining the term "hypercane" in 1994. His research group at MIT has developed a promising technique for inferring tropical cyclone activity from climate models. Prof Emanuel was asked to review a small portion of the IPCC report of 2007 dealing with tropical cyclones. He was named one of the 100 influential people of 2006 by Time Magazine. Prof Lisa Graumlich is Director of the School of Natural Resources and the Environment at The University of Arizona. As a researcher, she investigates how ecosystems and human societies adapt to climate change, with a special focus on severe and persistent droughts. She started her career at The University of Arizona in the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research and was first Director of the University of Arizona's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth. In 1999, she moved to Montana State University to direct the Big Sky Institute, returning to Arizona to take up her current post in 2007. Prof David Hand FBA is Professor of Statistics in the Department of Mathematics at Imperial College. He is also Chief Scientific Adviser to Winton Capital Management, and President of the Royal Statistical Society. He has broad research interests, including multivariate statistics, classification methods, pattern detection, the interface between statistics and computing, and the foundations of statistics. He has wide-ranging consultancy experience to organisations ranging from banks, through pharmaceutical companies, to governments. Prof Herbert Huppert FRS has been Professor of Theoretical Geophysics and Foundation Director, Institute of Theoretical Geophysics, at the University of Cambridge since 1989 and Fellow of King's College Cambridge since 1970. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1987. His area of expertise is general fluid mechanics, in particular as applied to the Earth Sciences. Current areas of active research include: phase changes between fluid and solids (solidification and melting); formation of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic; propagation of gravity currents; particle-driven flows; turbidites and pyroclastic flows; flow of granular media; volcanic eruption dynamics; natural ventilation; slow viscous motions; flow in porous media and carbon dioxide sequestration. Prof Michael Kelly FRS is Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge, where during 2003-05 he was also executive director of the Cambridge-MIT Institute. He was a member of the research staff of GEC during 1981-1992, and professor of physics and electronics at the University of Surrey during 1992-2002, and head of its School of Electronics and Physical Sciences during 1996-2001. He is also a non-executive director of the Laird Group plc. He is a fellow of the Royal Societies of London and New Zealand and of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Physics and the Institute of Engineering and Technology. He was chief scientific adviser to the Department of Communities and Local Government from 2006 to 2009. 4. The University's submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee can be seen at:
Reader Comments (38)
Chairman chosen by the Royal Society, are they not part of the problem? and then we see that said Chairman is President of Carbon Capture and Storage Association. Correct me if I am in error, but doesn't that imply a conflict of interest? And that is before we look at the other members. Independant it ain't!
It does seem to be technically well-qualified. As for impartiality, we'll have to keep our fingers crossed. The Royal Society has not been inspiring in this regard in recent years, as it transformed itself into a state-funded campaigner for climate alarmism.
Excessive reliance on computer modelling seemed to have played a big part in the lunatic response of the government to the mad-cow problem, and in their response to climate variation, and of course uncertainty about computers themselves was at the heart of the lunacy called the 'year 2000 problem'. Maybe it will take a while longer before we shall see deep inquiries into all of these, and into the role of presidents and committees of the Royal Society in any or all of them.
At first glance, only Huppert would appear to independent of climate change research and knock-on effects such as renewables or direct government funding.
This type of review is never going to be able to change much. At their most sceptical, they might be able to call out some specific parts of the work which is not scientifically robust, and suggest that the research to date has been overly selective.
That in itself proves nothing, and even more, at a policy level adds very little which is not already known.
In order to progress the sceptical point of view, research is required into alternative theories, and that doesn't happen overnight. In this debate, no-one is independent. Everyone wants to avoid being blamed for making a decision which they can't justify in 50 years time.
Perhaps we can compile a list of what the Committee should look at and to whom they should talk. We should bear in mind that the focus is on CRU's own research rather than say Mann's.
Sean's right. This is just planning to put a coat of white paint on top of the whitewash.
Huppert is the only one I've met - a vain fellow.
In fact I've already seen the finished report:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
Here are Kerry Emanuel views in Climategate, MIT World, Dec 10th 2009, "“What we have here,” says Kerry Emanuel, are “thousands of emails collectively showing scientists hard at work, trying to figure out the meaning of evidence that confronts them. Among a few messages, there are a few lines showing the human failings of a few scientists…” Emanuel believes that “scientifically, it means nothing,” because the controversy doesn’t challenge the overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic warming. He is far more concerned with the well-funded “public relations campaign” to drown out or distort the message of climate science, which he links to “interests where billions, even trillions are at stake...” This “machine … has been highly successful in branding climate scientists as a bunch of sandal-wearing, fruit-juice drinking leftist radicals engaged in a massive conspiracy to return us to agrarian society…”
In reply to this Richard Lindzen professed, "he has “no idea” what Emanuel is talking about -- if a “machine” exists, it’s on the “other side,” marginalizing those who disagree on the science. The release of emails is likely due “to a whistleblower who couldn’t take it anymore.” Lindzen sees evidence in the correspondence of “things that are unethical and in many cases illegal,” including the refusal to allow outsiders access to data, and the willingness to destroy data rather than release it. He believes that since it’s hard to read the documents “and not conclude that bad things are going on,” this will have a negative impact on “popular support for science.” There are “scandals, cheating and arguments” over research dealing with tiny increments of temperature change, Lindzen speculates, because so many scientists and ordinary people are invested in the idea of dramatic, human-based warming -- “People are being thrown catastrophes.”
This Royal Society panel is already in trouble. Should Kerry Emanuel now resign because of what he has already stated on what he believes? In no way could Kerry Emanuel can be considered to have an open mind on the subject.
We are looking at another WHITEWASH in process.
An address by Lord Oxburgh in New Z ealand shows how unbiased he is going to be!http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro/060411Interviews/060411Interviews.html
Massive conflict of interest. The chairman, Lord Oxburgh, is Chairman of Falck Renewables, which has vested interests in pushing the AGW agenda as it is into wind power:
“Falck Renewables' mission is to help expand the global use of wind energy”
"Falck Renewables is creating a portfolio of wind energy projects across Europe, focusing on certain key countries including the UK, Italy, Spain and France. All our projects are being developed in partnership with local developers and other stakeholders. Falck’s approach is to be the long term owner and operator of a major portfolio of wind energy projects.
Europe is now becoming increasingly aware of the issues of climate change and the scarcity of fossil fuels, with consequent increases in costs and greater focus on the security of supply issues. In light of such scenario, the European States have resolved to increase the use of alternative technologies for generating electric power, based on the principles of reducing carbon emissions, energy saving and efficiency. Falck Renewables is part of the solution, making a significant contribution towards satisfying the surging demand for energy from renewables sources. It is involved in all the key phases of the wind industry: from the development, financing and building to the operation of wind farms and the sale of electricity generated."
"Falck Renewables is an innovative wind energy company headquartered in London, England. Founded in 2002, its objective is to play a major role in responding to the growing problem of climate change attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, Falck wind farms in operation and construction represent a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 1 million tonnes annually."
"Falck Renewables’ mission is to help expand the global use of wind energy. This mission supports the European Council’s goal of having 20% of total energy consumed from renewable sources by 2020. Falck provides technical solutions for a future with reduced dependence on fossil fuels and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, which has been identified as the cause of global warming and is a major threat to our planet."
Oh, so no conflict of interest there, then?
Oh dear: just checking on Ron Oxburgh, he's an eco-alarmist and part of the eco-imperialist empire. He's on the Green Fiscal Commission, chaired by Robert Napier, Ex-WWF and into all sorts of eco-imperialism. The Green Fiscal Commission is the body seeking to introduce swingeing green taxes.
See more on Napier and the Green Fiscal Commission here:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/
Really folks you should be watching and listening to first 20 minutes of this
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
It is very revealing.
Mac
Is the quote you give above in that first 20mins?
It isn't necessarily whitewash - I don't expect everyone who looks at the issue is completely closed to revising their own beliefs. More and more of the posters here are so angry that they will not even stop and think about what would be necessary to present a convincing scientific argument.
In order to make progress, it is necessary to open the scientific community to the ideas of discussion, and questioning of the 'consensus'. We have already seen some academics becoming more open to this - but if you imagine it is possible to prove wrongdoing, you're living in a fantasy land.
Is the quote you give above in that first 20mins?
Yes, and there is more.
Richard Lindzen's rebuttal of Kerry Emanuel is probably the best I've heard on climate alarmism and the impact of Climategate on science.
There is no way that Kerry Emanuel can be considered to be a neutral and open-minded member of this Royal Society panel.
The intent is clear we are witnessing another incompetent attempt at a WHITEWASH.
UNBELIEVABLE!
Emanuel's recent alarmism and Gray's rebuttal are at http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Gray%20Rebuttal%20to%20Emanuel.pdf
RS BS?
Mac wrote,
"There is no way that Kerry Emanuel can be considered to be a neutral and open-minded member of this Royal Society panel.
"The intent is clear we are witnessing another incompetent attempt at a WHITEWASH."
What nonsense. Pure poppycock.
Both Emanuel and Lindzen wrote opinion pieces. The fact remains that Emanuel is one of the most respected scientists around and his qualifications and scientific papers are the basis for such decisions. He has changed his mind over time based on science, not on politics. Once a global warming skeptic, he contradicted Al Gore's claims of anthropogenic global warming at senate hearings in the 1980's, right to Gore's face. Since then, the science is what changed his mind.
If you don't let go of the politics, you'll never understand the science. Feel free to read his papers on his website so you can actually understand the sound basis of the science - if you can give up your political biases, that is.
".....and will have the opportunity to see original data"
I thought they had lost the original data?
Radio New Zealand's Chris Laidlaw asked Lord Oxburgh in an interview (Radio NZ, April 2, 2006) about the motives of scientists who argue that human-caused global warming has not yet been established. Oxburgh's reply: "I don't know of any cluster of opinion that I respect within the scientific community that resist what I have said so far...that isn't to say there isn't someone in a cave somewhere who thinks differently, who has been isolated from the rest of the world, but I honestly don't think so"
"Warning against the "angry beast" of climate change, Lord Ron Oxburgh...called for more determined action by the UK government to limit emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. Delivering the fourth Greenpeace Business Lecture on 25 January 2005, Lord Oxburgh said..."Governments in developed countries need to introduce taxes, regulations or plans such as the European Union carbon trading scheme to increase the cost of emitting carbon dioxide."
Oxburgh was Chairman of The Climate Group, whose purpose is propagandizing the global warming hoax, and of getting large and medium-size businesses to commit to it; he's on the advisory board of Climate Change Capital investment bank managing US$1.5 billion,
http://www.climatechangecapital.com/people/lord-ronald-oxburgh.aspx
No conflict of interest, of course.
Lord Oxburgh: "What we don't want to see is in two years' time the government simply becoming bored with climate change after we've invested a lot of our shareholders' money."
(Reported on South East Climate Change Partnership website)
Certainly not; we've got to get back on the alarmist track after this Climategate diversion.
If half of these posts are true, then the Royal Society should come under scrutiny.. Has anyone approached them there is clearly a conflict of interest in the Chair and opinions expressed by the other members indicate that their minds are already made up?
If you want to really see Kerry Emanual in action, watch the Great Climate Debate held at MIT on 10 December 2009. See below:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730
To "suggest" that he might be biased is an understatement. You may also find it interesting to see the magnitude of his government research contracts.
My apologies: the title of the video was "The Great Climategate Debate" rather than The Great Climate Debate.
"To "suggest" that he might be biased is an understatement"
Bias? Bullocks. You really don't know what you are talking about, DrCrinum. Emanuel's statements - and his career's work - are based on the science
This nonsensical politicization-of-science crusade you are all on is self-defeating. You should know better.
Lisa Graumlich is a climate alarmist. She is also a recipient of the Climategate emails. How can SHE be on the panel??
"There's a scenario widely discussed in the scientific community and not far fetched that truly does wake me up in a cold sweat at night," Graumlich says. "Based upon the acceleration of warming and possible feedback loops that speed it up more than we anticipate, there is a very real prospect that we could see a melting out of the Arctic Ice Sheet."
"What allows me to get back to sleep after I wake up in a cold sweat is that there's promise in a re-organized global world," Graumlich says. "...The pressing need to confront climate change will force a huge unprecedented reaction, even if the outcomes are for the better."
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/global_warming_hits_the_american_west/
Do we really want people who wake up in a cold sweat because of all the climate alarmism, and get back to sleep dreaming of the New World Order?
Better links to the article about Lisa Graumlich, Climate Change hits the American West, here, here, or here.
David Hand is an interesting choice, and is the statistician. He has a lecture on scientific fraud, and has given it widely.
Regarding David Hand, here is an interesting quote from him.
—Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D, 47: 247 (1998).
And, as noted above, Hand is the current president of the Royal Statistical Society.
My biggest criticism about global-warming science is not the dishonesty, but the statistical incompetence, which I believe to be criminally negligent. Hence having Hand on the panel might be very good.
From ITG homepage of Herbert Huppert:
Huppert, H.E. and Sparks, R.S.J. (2006) "Extreme Natural Hazards: population growth, globalisation and environmental change", Phil.Trans. R. Soc. A 364, 1875-1888.PDF
Huppert (Google cache).
Fluid modelling of carbon dioxide sequestration
Current global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are approximately 27 Gigatonnes annually. The influence of this green-house gas on climate has raised concern. A means of reducing environmental damage is to store carbon dioxide somewhere until well past the end of the fossil fuel era. Storage by injection of liquid, or supercritical, carbon dioxide into porous reservoir rocks, such as depleted oil and gas fields and regional saline aquifers, is being considered.
Submission of Professor Michael J Kelly to HOUSE OF LORDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 22.09.09:
Between July 2006 and June 2009, I was (part-time) Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department for Communities and Local Government, with a particular interest in how the built environment will come to meet the 2050 climate change targets.
p4: I would argue now that there is enough climate data in that the emphasis should shift from yet more analysis to clear actions in mitigation and adaptation.
20 A Final Point
Rather that look just at the looming financial restraints of the level of research funding as a guide to action or change now, it is worth looking further ahead. After the first decade in human history of wide bandwidth global communications it is a litany of Malthusian problems besetting us that have come to centre stage: over population, energy security, resource depletion, climate change, financial chaos and the downsides of both poverty and affluence. When in 2050 the history of this time is being written, where will our sciences, engineering and institutional efforts of today appear in that history? Viewed from this perspective, I fear we are not joined up enough so that the total effort is greater than the sum of the parts, as will be needed if we are to have an impact on the entire planet. Ensuring impact at scale is our greatest challenge today, and our S&T priorities and the way we organize ourselves to deliver the deliverables is an important ingredient.
Nutt sacking row deepens. Scientists want maximum respect
The statement added: "It is recognised that some policy decisions are contingent on factors other than the scientific evidence, but when expert scientific advice is rejected, the reasons should be described explicitly and publicly."
The statement is signed by over 20 very senior scientists including Lord Rees of Ludlow, president of the Royal Society, Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, Professor David Hand of the Royal Statistical Society, Professor Colin Blakemore and Professor Sheila M Bird.
"Bias? Bullocks. You really don't know what you are talking about, DrCrinum. Emanuel's statements - and his career's work - are based on the science
This nonsensical politicization-of-science crusade you are all on is self-defeating. You should know better."
Have you looked at the MIT interview? The innuendo and ad hom remarks Emanuel uttered in his introduction towards the sceptical science was utter bias. To drag in the tobacco industry hasn't been done by the worst trolls in climate blogs since long time. And his set-up discussion with someone from the public about the "denial industry" was repulsive. I had never seen Emanual before and I found his discussion technique apalling coming from someone with such a "stature". He used all the vain arguments commonly used in blogs like Unreal Climate and "Open Mind".
Lindzen's rebuttal was impressive and much more scienctifical. I was highly disappointed in Emanuel as a "top gun" scientist.
Just as a matter of interest, if the hockey team et al have done nothing wrong , why did professor Jones say that he had considered suicide?. Think about it.
It WILL be a whitewash, there has never been any doubt about that.
Looks like a Whitewash to me George. I especially like this quote : "CRU's scientific papers have been examined by scientists from other institutions through the peer review process before being accepted for publication by international journals. We have no reason to question the effectiveness of this process."
The "process" was far from perfect because we are all human, but in this case there is dramatic proof that the process has been wildly and deliberately corrupted. Peer reviewed does not mean "correct" and in this case it doesn't even mean "not a bald faced lie".
Of course its a whitewash. A hand picked panel of experts appointed by the University , the "inquiry" will take place at the university . They will speak to those involved at CRU but not with their principal critics. Finally the results will be published by the university.
It's about a credible a getting the Metropolitan Police to investigate claims of violence by the TSG.
The conclusions of the report have already been written. They will now flesh out the detail with a few hundred pages of fluff.
The joke is they have barefaced cheek to refer to this as an "independent" inquiry.
This will do nothing to restore public confidence. They are still in denial about the crisis this has created in the credibility of science and imagine that if they just carry on and deny everything it will all go away.