Speculation alert
I struggle to make sense of Lord Oxburgh and his report. The investigation they performed was so cursory and the report they produced so brief, it is hard to credit that they thought that they would get away with it. The report is a whitewash, but it's a really bad one, since there is no attempt to make it look as if they looked diligently into the question of the integrity of the CRU. Why would a group of intelligent people involved in a coverup not make more effort to cover their tracks?
Then there is the question of David Hand. At the time the panel was announced, more than one person spoke to me of Professor Hand's integrity. There was therefore a great deal of surprise that he allowed himself to be associated with a report that was quite so shameful.
With these facts in mind, should we perhaps be wondering if the scant nature of the report is not an insult to the public per se, but was in fact a sign of the unhappiness of the panel, finding themselves involved in a whitewashing of which they wanted no part? Could it be that, by writing just five pages, the panel were almost sending a signal to us observers of the climate scene?
Looked at in this way, at least one other curiosity of the Oxburgh story starts to make more sense. We know from Ben Webster's story in the Times that Lord Oxburgh was aware of his conflict of interest before his appointment was confirmed. It was an issue discussed between him and UEA:
The sceptics have questioned Lord Oxburgh’s independence because he has close links to companies that stand to profit from global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Royal Society had recommended him, but it was the university’s final decision to appoint him to chair the panel.
Lord Oxburgh says he told the university, when it approached him, that people might question his independence.
“I said undoubtedly people will point at this and their answer was, after they consulted, that I was the best person to do it.”
So the conflict of interest was not an accident that only came to light after Lord O's appointment. It was an issue that was discussed beforehand. Why, of all the scientists in the world, should UEA so badly want Oxburgh, with his glaring conflicts of interest? Why was such a man "the best person to do it".
In the light of the analysis above, is the answer that a man with interests in renewable energy is a man whose financial future depends on remaining in the good books of the government? Was Lord Oxburgh a man who could be leant on?
And if so, what leverage might have be applied to the other panelists?