Bishop Hill Intriguing possibility
Apr 14, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Royal Society From Lord Oxburgh's report, paragraph 3 of 26.
The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society. All had been published in international scientific journals and had been through a process of peer review. CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit. The Panel was also free to ask for any other material that it wished and did so. Individuals on the panel asked for and reviewed other CRU research materials.
So, not only did the Royal Society pick the members of the panel, but they also picked the papers that were to be examined.
I wonder who it was within the Royal Society that might have done this work. I mean, one would need a pretty in-depth understanding of climatology to be able to pick a representative sample of papers from the CRU oeuvre would one not? That sort of understanding isn't found on every street corner. So who might they have turned to?
How about the Royal Society Advisory Group on Climate Change? You know, the one with Phil Jones as a member.
They wouldn't have would they?
Reader Comments (16)
Of course they would!
Good point. Note that they didn't include any of the papers co-authored with Mann. Or Jones' own 1000 year reconstruction, which is in the spaghetti graph.
This is OT but certainly good timing. Donna Laframboise has just put up the results of her community audit of all 18,5331 citations in AR4. Of these, 5,587 or 30% are from the gray literature. To quote Captain Renault's best line from Casablanca, "I'm shocked, shocked..."
The report is at www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
I've known for years that British Art was dead. The Arts Council ensured that by giving grants to people to produce absolute shite that no sensible person would pay for.
I have been sorely disillusioned in the past 6 months. I now know that British Science is now dead. It has been corrupted by government orthodoxy.
I am now forced to conclude that the entire British nation is now shite and will remain so until an entirely different political party, one that cares enough, comes in and clears out the corruption.
What are the chances of this happening? I am encouraging my kids to work abroad. OK, abroad may be corrupt, but at least you don't quite feel so much part of it.
@RayG: Lucky those 2500 scientists looked at all the references using their very robust processes eh?
To coin a book title: Is it me, or is everything shite?
I listened with some incredulity to the R4 6 o'clock news. I think you got very short shrift, there's an editing trick that they used - cut the pause - don't let the listener think...... unbalance it ... The BBC news subs I'm sure - think they're being clever.
Come on, move along, nothing to see here.
The UEA "conclusion" reached defies my normally robust inventiveness for comedy metaphor, because I suppose, I suspect it might be a tragedy.
Hohum - phlogiston rules ATM then.
The rot is deep.
Oi, bloody Bishop 'ill, you leave my Phil alone. 'e's been vidnicated by a Lord, han't 'e? Good boy, 'e is, my Phil. 'e leaves wivout a stain on 'is character.
Everybody thinks exoneration and white-washing are simple jobs! It takes a lot of work to pick just the right people, hobble their ability to collect evidence, and curtail their curiosity, and tell them what to write in their definitive report. Critics should ease up!
I'm just wondering what kind of sap agrees to put his name on this garbage. History will show him to be a fool and a dupe. Any reasonable person has to know that's the direction this whole charade is headed. So why agree to step in front of the train? Maybe they were blackmailed?
Stan,
The good Lord you are wondering about is apparently much more interested in his 'green' industry stakes than he is in being troubled by truth, honor, integrity or most especially the judgement of history.
This exercise is nearing the point where collusion shades ineluctably to actual conspiracy. When complicit principals actively engage in subterfuge to conceal their actions and intent, obstruct disinterested inquiries, misrepresent conclusions with the object of major pecuniary gain, they become accomplices in ongoing criminal fraud.
Exonerating this Green Gang of peculating junk-science poseurs will embolden fraudsters of every stripe to escalate their depredations, on the premise that officials' willful neglect is standard practice. Betraying public trust apparently means nothing to these small, mean men.
[Snip - venting]
Andrew, how was the above comment venting? Is it because the truth hurts and you know the UK is fucked and you don't want to acknowledge this on your blog? You are doing a disservice to your readers for not warning them of what is coming.
They had a total of 17 working days to prepare this report. In that 17 working days they read and dissected 20 papers, and conducted 15hrs of interviews with CRU staff. Presumably they took at least 3 days to get the report together. The productivity of my painter and decorator is way below the ones used by the UEA.
Glad to see Prof. Jones's mum is still at large.
I fear Paul Z might be right about the state of the UK, though. Funny how the politicians don't mention it:
http://www.debt-clock.org/
@Brian Williams
"I've known for years that British Art was dead."
Oh no it isn't, at least not in any statistically significant way. I have two of Josh's T-shirts to prove this and have been wearing them proudly!