Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« It's the climate, innit? | Main | It's true! »
Tuesday
Apr132010

Slap it on all over

Rumour has it that Lord Oxburgh has completed the scientific review of the CRU, which will be published tomorrow. That was quick, wasn't it? I don't know about you but I haven't even seen terms of reference yet. Whitewashing is a quick job isn't it?

Is anyone going to take any bets as to whether the scope of Lord O's work is so restricted as to prevent him investigating the most serious allegations?

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (19)

Going at it like an Oxburgh at a Climategate one might say?

Apr 13, 2010 at 7:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

Nah, no fun betting on certainties!

Apr 13, 2010 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterIan E

20 copies of HSI says he will restrict the report to protect the innocent taxpayers from outrage and guilty from prosecution and defamation. Friendly bet...speaking metaphorically of course, but HSI is worth it's weight in gold.

Apr 13, 2010 at 8:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin

For those who may not yet have read it, Joanne Nova has a very cogent piece on the recent Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/who-needs-a-committee-report-to-spot-rank-deception/

As she so rightly says, 'We don’t need a committee to state the obvious'.

Apr 13, 2010 at 9:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Shouldn't the betting focus on the size of investment recommended by Lord Whitewash (sorry Oxburgh) to bring the CRU up to internationally accepted standards as a leading research institution?

Apr 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Why is it always bloody birds or polar bears. Will no-one think of the wood lice?

Apr 13, 2010 at 10:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

dearieme - Lucy Allen, 15 shares your concern for humble woodlice. I am sure Lucy is taught in an entirely politically correct manner, by teachers indoctrinated at considerable expense....

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/woodlice/conclusions2.html

"In 1985 the population of woodlice covered the whole of Great Britain but now, 16 years later, they seem to have disappeared from Ireland and the extreme north of England and Wales. The total number of woodlice has decreased considerably. This may suggest that their habitat is being destroyed by deforestation etc. The land is being built on to provide more homes for humans but is taking away the homes of woodlice. Global warming has caused temperatures to rise, which is not suitable for woodlice. Therefore they are not surviving in such great numbers. Certain species favour certain regions because they have adapted to various factors of the regions, such as soil content and temperature. - Lucy Allen, aged 15, Stonelands school, postcode RH16 3TU"

Lucy may now be a senior researcher at the CRU.

Apr 14, 2010 at 12:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

All this is nice, but will Lord Oxburgh address the wanton destruction of the homes of squirrels by greedy builder's yard owners looking to turn a profit from all those trees they cut down for lumber?

As for the wood lice, they (the greedy builder's yard owners) deserve them. I hope they scratch themselves to death, I do!

Apr 14, 2010 at 12:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Yer Grace
According to the press release from UEA, the panel was to meet in April and it is only now the thirteenth day of April!

So they have seen "the original data", spoken to "those who did the work" and have "written the report" and submitted it to UEA's VC for his response?
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAPannounce

Is it too much too hope that any announcement will be a response to the relevant HoC report recommendations and a possible joint communication with Sir Muir's inquiry?

Apr 14, 2010 at 4:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterE O'Connor

ZT - I can reassure Ms. Allen that there's a healthy population of woodlice around my parents' home in Ireland.

Apr 14, 2010 at 4:31 AM | Unregistered Commenteranonym

Radio 4 this morning hinting at the report containing criticism of the statistical capability of the CRU work, They also had a scientist from IC on who was in rather a bluster and seemed to make no rational point other than that all the science is settled. He seemed to have been sleeping for the last 6 months.

Apr 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Regardless of the future of climate and CO2s role in it, I can see a new sort of enquiry looming.

“So in 2010 there was the opportunity to turn climate science around. You could have insisted that new protocols were put in place, that key figures were removed, but you chose to ignore the warning signs. Why was that?”

“Well, err, it was standard practice at the time.”

“It was standard practice to pretend that there was nothing wrong with climate science or climate scientists and write reports largely exonerating them?”

“Err, yes.”

“All that, despite the obvious and growing distrust of the public?”

“I have no data on that.”

“But it was obvious.”

“There was some indications, but they weren’t peer reviewed.”

“You needed peer reviewed reports to spot the rising trend of scepticism?”

“There were credible studies done at the time that showed scepticism was fuelled by a very small group of oil funded individuals.”

“Credible studies that later proved to be severely biased by the researchers’ rigid viewpoints. They cherry picked the data and produced software that would create an oil funded sceptic signal from the noisy natural sceptic background data.”

“We didn’t know that at the time.”

“You were repeatedly warned.”

“We believed that the warnings were a cynical ploy to discredit hard working scientists. We were inundated by warnings of shoddy science and that pointed to an industry funded smear campaign.”

“As opposed to genuine concerns?”

“We didn’t think the public could generate that number of negative comments without being directed by a central body.”

“Even though those comments and concerns were unique in style, content and location.”

“We thought that proved how incredibly well funded and sinister the campaign was.”

“When did you become aware that public concern about the quality of climate science was genuine and immense?”

“We’re still not sure.”

“WHAT?”

“There are a number of peer reviewed studies that show the public is still in blissful ignorance of how corrupt... err I mean misguided climate science had become. We feel that there’s still a good chance of regaining credibility if there was a major climate related event.”

“Do you really think that will happen now?”

“Well, just between you and me... there are some environmentally minded individuals who might just be able to arrange it. The public need to know that they can’t just go on as they have been. Regardless of what’s happening to the climate, man is responsible for ruining the planet.”

“WHAT? Are you suggesting that here are some who would engineer a climate disaster?”

“Let’s just say that we still intend to prove that climate change is man made... one way or another.”

Apr 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Be honest this is what was expected.

WHITEWASH1: The Science and Technology Committee - The MPs, by their own admission, said their own report was small in scope and rushed - it found no wrong doing and it preserved the consensus.

WHITEWASH2: Sir Muir Russell's Review. The review panel have met only twice, has failed to be open and public, and is seriously compromised. It will find no wrong doing and will preserve the consensus.

WHITEWASH3: Lord Oxburgh's Review. This seriously compromised review panel has managed in a few days to review all the science on climate change (????????). It will find no wrong doing and will preserve the consensus.

WHITEWASH4: The UN's Review. The InterAcademy Council headed by Robert Dijksgraaf. Not a peep, not a sound, not a murmour, status unknown. It will find no wrong doing and will preserve the consensus.

As Richard Nixon found to his cost it wasn't the crime, the break in at Watergate, that did the damage it was the attempted cover-up.

These four whitewashes conducted in haste by skimming or turning a blind eye to the evidence, and all coming to the same foregone conclusion, will ensure that climate science will continue to be mired in mud.

Climate scientists don't need any enemies when they have friends in high places like these.

Apr 14, 2010 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

The BBC Today programme was, as usual, completely biased in favour of the alarmist camp when it came to discussing the release of the report. It featured Roger Harrabin and a fully paid up alarmist professor whose name I unfortunately missed.

John Humphreys dared to suggest that the leaked, sorry he said hacked, emails had caused more scientists to be sceptical of AGW. The alarmist prof would have none of it, though he had to admit members of the public were increasingly sceptical. He proudly pointed out that there was not a single sceptical scientist at the IPCC Copenhagen meeting. Surprise, surprise! He was also happy that all three political paries were on side regardless of any doubts of the voters.

Apr 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Stroud

Concerning WHITEWASH4, has anybody got any info on who has been drafted onto the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG)?

Quote from Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, 10th March 2010, on climate change reviews, "Climate science is inherently complex, integrating many different disciplines and kinds of data."

It seems such complexity is no barrier to Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell. It appears that superficialty and the ability to sit on your hands are the required pre-requistes in analysing the current state of climate science.

Apr 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Lord Oxburgh's Review.
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.

Do you think they met on April 1st?

Apr 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/oxburgh

Apr 14, 2010 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete

Did anyone expect anything else? Jones is ruined anyway, damaged goods, and Acton will be remembered as the bobbing buffoon. Willis, Oxburgh and presumably Muir, all found nothing wrong worthy of the name, not even the prima facie evidence of breaking the law. Not sure what disciplines the international panel were from, but if they can collectively accept that temperature data can consist of proxies and instrumental measurement because the proxies don't match the instrumental data in the late twentieth century, then the whole of science is in a worse state than we thought.

It won't go away, and when something won't go away your best bet is to get to the truth as soon as possible. Even a cursory reading of the emails and Harry will tell you something is desparately wrong in the CRU.

I noted also that they thought that sharing the code would lead to the irksome task of documenting it so other people could understand what you are trying And what sort of scientists accept that you can write a paper, use a program that supports that paper and not document the program? I fear that the climate scientists are going to bring the whole of science down with them.

Apr 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

ZT wrote about a shortage of woodlice in Ireland. I live in North County Dublin and have plenty of the little blighters. If you want any, please let me have a forwarding address.

Also, E O'Connor, I feel your using the words "Yer Grace" might be slighlty disrespectful to his holiness.

Could I humbly suggest you use the words "Dear Grace" in future?

Apr 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>