Friday
Mar262010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill UEA says "who cares what you think!"
Mar 26, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh The University does not see any conflict of interest in Lord Oxburgh's affiliation with Globe UK, a small parliamentary body from which he receives no financial reward and whose members include well-known parliamentarians such as Ken Clarke, Chris Huhne, Lord Fowler, Simon Hughes and Tim Yeo.
Lord Oxburgh's views on climate change are a matter of public record.
The University fully expects that Lord Oxburgh and the panel will question CRU's work in the most objective way, and is committed to taking whatever action is necessary following publication of his report.
Full story at El Reg.
Reader Comments (25)
Whatever!
I see a spoof of Spoonful of Sugar here. I may need to work on the lyrics when...
Nice obfuscation, guys, it's the link to Falck which is the financial one. The GLOBE thing just stinks in a non-financial way.
Well-known parliamentarians such as Elliott Morley and Stephen Byers.
What about his other interests:
* President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association
* Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables
* A member of the Green Fiscal Commission
* Adviser to Climate Change Capital
* Adviser to Low Carbon Inititative
* Chairman, Blue NG
The University can "not see" and "fully expect" what it likes. They and Lord Oxburgh (and of course, Geoffrey Boulton) would be well advised to look up the definition of conflict of interest for example at Wikipedia:
"A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other."
"The best way to handle conflicts of interests is to avoid them entirely. For example, someone elected to political office might sell all corporate stocks that he/she owns before taking office, and resign from all corporate boards. "
There is also a good definition of conflict of interest in the Staff Administration Manual of the University of Edinburgh (Boulton's institution).
"A situation in which an employee has a private or personal interest which is likely to appear to influence the objective exercise of an aspect(s) of his/her University duties. For the purpose of this Policy, the term ‘conflict of interest’ includes perceived and potential as well as actual conflicts of interest. A perceived conflict of interest is one which a reasonable person would consider likely to compromise objectivity."
You should give them the pattern for their report. Then they can fill in some names, some data, time and date and a signature. This may help them and will shorten the whole process, saving a lot of taxpayers money.
I wonder that the professorate of all the other disciplines is watching UEA's decline without protest. And the students? Their future is at stake: politisized science like in former east Europe.
Unfortunately the UEA know they can get away with this. Their friends in the media, ably taught by the SMC and cheered on all the way by Fiona "exposing conflicts of interest my speciality" at the FT won't be making any fuss.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/26/rajendra-pachauri-climate-science-persecution
Pachauri in the Grauniad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/26/dont-hound-the-climate-scientists
Main Pachauri whine.
That sounds like it could be a quote from Edward Acton, the Vice-Chancellor of UEA that sat beside Phil Jones during the hearings.
What part of the word "Global" does the University not understand?
The University may "not see any conflict of interest" but I expect plenty of other people do and will.
Folks,
As far as most of the cabal is concerned its 4 months on and nothing has happened, they're still in jobs (including PJ), still going to regular exotic conferences, and crucially government policy is pretty much unchanged.
What they have done though is reveal some crucial nuggets. In particular Globe is relatively vulnerable, given the mood at Westminster, what its set up to do, how its funded and crucially the rogues gallery it has on its board.
Thus a concerted letter writing campaign to your MP will embarass them into having to do something about it after the election; either banning serving MPs from this type of group or making any organisation which is sponsored by governement grant subject to FOI. In particular mine is a front bench Con. who is not on Globe, so he'll probably be more receptive than some.
BTW thanks for the positive feedback on the white paper idea thingy and apologies to Bish. for not realising he'd already thought along similar lines.
SDCS
Why would anyone expect anything different? Surely this reveals what lies beneath the surface more fully than even the Climategate emails themselves? Whereas ere now the embarrassed Emperor minced along, hands aflutter to conceal his nakedness, of late he smirks and pirouettes down the boulevard in priapic splendour.
"That sounds like it could be a quote from Edward Acton, the Vice-Chancellor of UEA that sat beside Phil Jones during the hearings."
As I, and others, have said before Trevor Davies is more likely to be the string puller than Acton. He is up to his neck in CRU, UAE and the establishment of the two reviews.
UAE will undoubtedly have a similar definition of "conflict of interest" in their Staff Handbook as the University of Edinburgh (see above).
Both the Russell and Oxburgh reviews are in effect internally commissioned - are their members subject to the UAE rules?
Two things which worry me about the review panel are:
1. All the members are academics, yet there has been virtually no questioning of IPCC orthodoxy by academics.
2. Lord Oxburgh was appointed on the recommendation of the Royal Society who web site also appears to accept the IPCC consensus.
The UAE must realise that a whitewash will satisfy no-one but unless the review engages with sceptics then that is what it will be perceived as.
(Incidentally I tried to give my site url www.climatedata.info and it was rejected as "unrecognised format".)
"UEA says "who cares what you think!""
The UAE is blind as a cement block and stupid as bag of hammers.
Its never the crime tht gets them . . its the cover-up
There is nothing worse than an administration that pretends to be honest, knowing full well they top the dishonesty chart and lie at the bottom of the morals and conduct league.
You have to question how some of these people acquired their status.
The "Truth" is defenseless and has no champion. No one involved cares what the "truth" of the matter is nor do they care anything for the reputation of UEA. When the dust has settled in a hundred years or so, the names of those involved will have long since been forgotten, but UEA will still stand as an institution of low character, a worthless monument to British academic integrity and scholarship. Dame Alma Mater has been raped and no one came to save, or even defend, her.
"Follow the money" is always a useful admonition is these circumstances. Having fingered Global for what it self-evidently is --an off-balance sheet slush fund for self-dealing insiders, similar to Enron's notorious "sequestered" accounting entities-- the task should now be to monitor just who gets what in bad faith, under false pretenses, from corrupt sub rosa greasing of various palms.
As is increasingly obvious, an Iron Triangle of academic/media/government insiders from the grotesque UN on down are complicit in a criminal conspiracy to defraud and extort taxpaying citizens worldwide. As AGW with its meretricious Cap-and-Trade scam falls away, there will always be another hoked up crisis-of-the-day to ensnare wacked-out eco-freaks in their pathetic vegan bubble cars.
Does anyone have access to the UEA staff manual whou would look up and post their own definition of a conflict of interest?
It's easier to continue the lies ...
More and more AGW is shaping up to be a classic financial scam.
It is going through an arc very similar to the one that wrecked Wall St. and nearly the world.
Group think, ridicule of critics, insider dealings, profiteering, income mistaken for wisdom, utility in the place of ethics.
RayG - Does anyone have access to the UEA staff manual whou would look up and post their own definition of a conflict of interest?
Could it be 'Anything that conflicts with the interests of UEA'.
Therefore anything that does not, is not.
I wonder how much worse it is in the US?
http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro/060411Interviews/060411Interviews.html
Lord Oxburgh speaks on Global Warming, New Zealand, April 2006.