Bishop Hill When Trevor tricked John
Jun 15, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Among the extra information released by Professor Beddington's office today, there were also some attachments to a message sent to him by Professor Trevor Davies of UEA. The message itself was released last time round, sans attachments, so I wrote back requesting the missing detail. They have apologised that the attachments "had become disconnected from the IT record".
The message concerned was the one in which Davies invited Beddington to "warm up" certain panel members before they received their official invitations to take part in the Oxburgh inquiry. Having made this request of Beddington, and explained the need for speed, Davies continued as follows:
For background I attach (1) a draft letter which will be sent to David [Hand, one of the panellists] by Ron [Oxburgh] (2) a list of papers we anticipate will be examined.
The letter is essentially just the invitation. I don't see anything of interest. The list of papers meanwhile is more intriguing. It can be seen here. While the papers mentioned appear to be identical to the versions seen previously (although I've not checked them in detail), at the bottom there are some words I hadn't seen before:
These key publications have been selected because of their pertinence to the specific criticisms which have been levelled against CRU's research findings as a result of the theft of emails.
Oh dear.
Reader Comments (17)
Oh dear indeed! Oh deary, deary me! Mr Davies has been a naughty boy, hasn't he? At first glance, not a single paper in the list is as described by Mr Davies.
Google Search :
"because of their pertinence"
No results found (0.37 seconds)
Did you mean: ""because of their lack of pertinence" ?
Will no one rid us of these manipulating, truth-hiding priests?
On much the same topic, an entry on Climateaudit appeared a few days back...
British Due Diligence – Royal Society Style
http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/10/british-due-diligence-royal-society-style/
Dear Martin [Rees] and Brian [Hoskins],
(...)
I did send you this list earlier, which I attach again here.[List obtained] They represent the core body of CRU work around which most of the assertions have been flying. They are also the publications which featured heavily in our submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry, and in our answers to the Muir Russell Review’s questions.
I would be very grateful if you would be prepared to allow us to use a form of words along the lines: “the publications were chosen in consultation with The Royal Society”.
Best Wishes
Trevor
Bishop, please help
Does this establish that the UEA provided a list to the Royal Society which then became the Royal Society's list of publications given as a suggestion to the Oxburgh panel?
????
@Shub Niggurath,
"Does this establish that the UEA provided a list to the Royal Society which then became the Royal Society's list of publications given as a suggestion to the Oxburgh panel?"
This issue was dealt with difenitively by SMc at climateaudit a few days ago. The Royal Society knowingly created a false impression that they selected the papers when in fact it was UEA. Andrew's post traces the source back farther in time and indicates that the source of this particular trick was Trevor Davies. The unanswered question is: was Oxburgh in on the fix or was he simply a small mind easily manipulated. If we now hear nothing from Oxburgh in the coming days, then we will know the answer. In the land of the dim wits, the half wit is King.
The letter sent out by Oxburgh to his panelist was only microscopically changed from Trevor Davies' version. The "Oxburgh" invitation letter was to that extent actually written by Trevor Davies.
Sadly the field of Climatology is largely dependent upon government grants for its existence. This political control of the purse strings has made it a simple matter to exploit climate scientists -- either slant your research according to the wishes of the politicians or lose your grants. But it is just not the actual scientists who have been manipulated by the demands of the politicians ;;;; it includes the administration of the institutions where the climate scientists are employed, because the administrators are included in the overhead for the research grants. So politicians corrupt both the scientists as well as the institutional management. Do you think Professor Davies was motivated to save the neck of his scientists, or was he wanting to preserve his own percentage of the action, or both?
The political majority wanted a whitewash, but now things are looking sloppy as to how the whitewash was staged. It could lead to a political embarrassment if enough leverage was exerted through publicity. If so, then the politicians could decide to cut their losses by dumping EAU/CRU. The politicians really don't need the climate issue; they could just as effectively pursue the finite fossil-fuel resource as the necessity for enacting carbon controls.
"In the land of the dim wits, the half wit is King."
Pithy, but it looks as if there are too many pretenders to the throne to count in that land. Perhaps 52 of them can be honored as "UC Twit of the Week," instead.
Presumably it is common knowledge that Trevor Davies was director of CRU 1993-98, just at the time that the Hockey stick was being man(n)ufactured
Bishop,
I am still puzzled that you have not done a post highlighting the devastating email unearthed by CA and quoted by Martin A above. This shows that the statement in para 3 of the Oxburgh report, that the papers "were selected on the advice of the Royal Society" is a lie. It's also interesting that Oxburgh twisted the words from "chosen in consultation with The Royal Society", which Rees agreed to, to "were selected on the advice of the Royal Society".
This seems odd since I think it was you who first noted the similarity between the Oxburgh papers and the UEA HoC ones and first suggested that it looked like UEA had selected the papers.
Your latest emails confirm all this of course.
The list of papers sent by Davies is absolutely identical to those in the final Oxburgh report, even down to the type-setting. Except of course that final paragraph is not in the final report - an implicit acknowledgement that it's not true.
Please can you give us the dates of these emails so we can see how they fit in with the ones on the CA 'British due diligence' thread?
The full request is here. It's the 15 June response that you want.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lord_oxburghs_report#outgoing-69270
I haven't done anything on Steve's post simply because I didn't feel I had anything to add. I rather assume that all my readers read CA too.
So then, the inquiry into the UEA was, in fact, orchestrated by ............. the UEA. Hmph.
“Although all the group would be welcome to read all the work, it is expected that each member would be asked to pay attention to four or so papers in particular and that each paper would be looked at in detail by at least two members”.
This sounds a bit like divide and keep ‘em in the dark, 11 papers, 4 supporting documents with a 6 or 7 man team. I wonder how many ot the team were in on the whole pitiful escapade and how many were being taken for dummies or even turned a blind eye. I suppose the next Honours list will tell us.
Ever decreasing circles.
UEA > Beddington > UEA > Royal Society > UEA > Oxburgh > UEA > Plughole
Thanks for the full link. And I'm sure you're quite right that we all read CA, and quite right not to duplicate stuff from other blogs.
You don't need to see these papers. These are not the droids you are looking for...