Fiona Harvey, the Financial Times' environment correspondent weighs in to the debate over Lord Oxburgh's appointment at the head of the Royal Society panel looking into the CRU-science, and the fact that the noble lord has a financial conflict of interest.
But already his appointment has been attacked by climate sceptics, as he has strong business interests in biofuels, is chairman of the wind company Falck Renewables, and a board member of Climate Change Capital, a major investor in carbon credits.
Critics say this is enough to ensure his view of the science is biased, and have called for his removal.
And roughly speaking, this is where we are coming from. So, what's Fiona's take on this argument?
The same bloggers are now aiming for Lord Oxburgh, and even if they do not manage to unseat him, when his committee reports they will undoubtedly claim that the conclusions are invalid.
But then, who would be good enough to head up such an inquiry, in the eyes of the sceptic community? Lord Lawson?
I'm struggling to understand what is going on in Ms Harvey's head in between her acknowledgement that the noble lord is indeed conflicted and the petulant closing shot. Does Ms Harvey really think that it doesn't matter that the head of the panel has a stake in the outcome of the review? Does she really think there is nobody who is both suitably qualified and free of vested interest?
The FT is meant to be a serious newspaper, right?