Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« New...scientist, did you say? | Main | On consensus »

Russell review due July 7

An announcement has gone up on the Russell review website.

The publication date for the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review report has been set for 7 July. Full details of publication arrangements will be given nearer the time.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (19)

Hmm - is it possible that they chose that date in the hope that the media would be distracted by the anniversary of the London bombings?

Jun 16, 2010 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Bailey

Spring was very late this year. Fortunately, it gives all sides who have been privy to the preliminary report over 3 weeks (should that be 5 weeks?) to spin a good response ...

Jun 16, 2010 at 8:40 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

"Independent" of what?

Jun 16, 2010 at 9:30 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

Here's Roger Harrabin's first draft (which I have taken the liberty of abbreviating): 'The lads played a blinder. Trifling inconsequential youthful indiscretions. Mighty works of monumental public import. Inevitable absent mindedness when so much owed by so many to so few. What is the value of truth anyway. Consensus unshaken. Gongs all round. Drink up.'

Jun 16, 2010 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Josh 22 said it all in full brilliant colour. Absolutely Technicolor®, it was.

Sometimes one picture is usually worth a 1000 words. In this case, 10,000.

Jun 17, 2010 at 1:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

If your Lordship or anyone else is around between noon and one today (UK time) you might want to ask Mr Pearce one or two questions online:

"Live Q&A: Fred Pearce on the hacked climate science emails

Fred Pearce will be online between 12-1pm on Thursday 17 June to answer questions on his new book about 'climategate' "

Jun 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

I'd give Roger Harrabin a break on this one, I think the penny is dropping with the more intelligent alarmists that as with Widgery the whole truth will come out because this is not some quiet scientific backwater these are the activist climatists deliberately distorting/hiding information and silencing critics. When Harrabin suggested to Russell that his panel and he might not be considered sufficiently seen as unbiased he got an imperial flick of the hand, and sounded surprisingly shocked by the hubris when reporting it.

Jun 17, 2010 at 11:54 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

We are used to dishonest politicians but now have a culture of dishonesty in science.

1. Scientific adovcacy and alarmism.

2. The Climategate emails.

3. The IPCC errors.

4. The various official whitewashes.

Science finds itself in the gutter and it wonders why!

Jun 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Just listened to the podcast. Not quite sure what to make of it though!
FP seemed to concede a few points (lack of transparency, possible bullying of peer reviewers, McIntyre not the bad guy as portrayed) whilst still basically saying 'move along, nothing to see here'.....
And his 'gut feeling'? - 'it wuz leaked, guv...'

Jun 17, 2010 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterDennis

I'm sure that the BBC and Roger Harrabin genuineley sincerely believed in AGW
Gentle persuasion and presentation of facts do work with most people.

Roger Harrabin has said many thing recently that was of interest.
We do have them to thank for the Phil Jones interview...

Roger would appear to be more open minded on the politics of it all now.

This DENIAR (many agw 'alarmist' people would accuse him of this, by just saying this in print) journalist, felt his unease...Prior to Copenhagen...

"The vice-president cleverly lures the viewer into making the calculation that CO2 drove historical climate change by presenting graphs and asking the audience if they fit.

The movie is product of a political debate - as is the court case
Well, the graphs do fit - but what Mr Gore fails to mention in the film is that mainstream scientists believe that historically the temperature shifted due to our changing relationship with the Sun, with warmer climes unlocking CO2 from the oceans, which amplified global temperature rise. "

Who is this deniar...? Roger Harriban

I wonder if the BBC realises, how would an ordinary member of the public been treated by Gores 'companions'

as he said:

"I challenged Mr Gore about this in an interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme in March.

He responded, accurately, that scientists believe that CO2 is now driving climate change - but that was not what his misleading historical graph showed.

And after the interview he and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.

It is miserable when such a vastly important debate is reduced to this."

It is a few years ago now, the article started like this...

"I first watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

I felt a flutter of unease.

Not because the central message - that climate change is happening and almost certainly caused by mankind - is untrue; but because in several points of the film, Mr Gore simply goes too far by asserting or implying facts that are contentious."

I wonder how uneasy the general public would feel going up against Al Gore, no special treatment because you are an important bbc journalist

Or in a few years maybe, anyone challenging Gordon Brown or Ed Milliband, or thewir equally believeing Huhn , Cameron counterparts.

'Climate Sabatouer' said Ed Milliband, scarily close to 'terrorist.
'Flat Earther' said Gordon Brown.

and some (only a few, for the moment, thankfully) eu, usa politicans calling for laws against denial

Jun 17, 2010 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

My, the Harrabin supporters are strident today.

We can conclude that jolly Roger Harrabin (tm) must indeed be central to the Muir Russell inquiry support/credibility/resuscitation plan.

Harrabin's position is nicely illustrated by his attack (sorry report) on a recent McIntyre talk:

The videotape of the talk bears no resemblance to that report:

So much for reporting - not to mention journalistic integrity.

Roger is no doubt a fine activist - but activism is not journalism.

Jun 17, 2010 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

I have been one of the BBC's biggest critics: (particulary Richard Black)
Praise in public, criticise privately..

Roger Harrabin said this MORE recently:

"Even at the Heartland Institute climate sceptics' conference in Chicago last week most scientists seemed to agree that CO2 had probably warmed the planet at the end of the 20th century, over and above natural fluctuations.

But they did not agree that the warming will be dangerous - and they object to being branded fools or hirelings for saying so.


"This again is surely questionable - he admitted that he himself was not very conversant with CRU science. And what's more the society has turned outside its ranks for a couple of panellists on its current climate review.

The deep irony is that critics like Mr McIntyre profess themselves to want to take part in the science, not to destroy it. "


"Steve McIntyre, for instance, is a mining engineer who started examining climate statistics as a hobby. He has taken on the scientific establishment on some key issues and won. "


"I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: "I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over."

Lord May's formidable intellect and the power of his personality may have made it hard for others to find a corner from which to dissent. "The debate is over" was a phrase used in order to persuade Tony Blair that policies were needed to tackle the rise in CO2.

It was widely acknowledged that climate sceptics wanted to continue the debate in order to delay action to curb emissions.

But what did the phrase mean? Did it mean the IPCC is unquestionably right? Or that cutting emissions 80% is the only way to save the planet? Or simply that it is basic physics that CO2 is a warming gas? "

Jun 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterbarry woods

Activism != Journalism

Feel free to paste portions of the entire internet wherever you care, but Harrabin's recidivism is well documented.

Roger 'journalistic integrity' Harrabin's 'positioning' piece prior to the official release of Sir Muir's report will undoubtedly be an amusingly inventive tale.

Drink up!

Jun 17, 2010 at 6:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

ZT. You may be right about Roger Harrabin, or you may be wrong. It is a long road for any human being to take from an entrenched certainty to doubt to disbelief and it is a hard road. At least on the surface he appears to be noticing and reporting things he wouldn't have done some years ago. I am assuming he has invested his belief system in CAGW and taken the words of the high priests of that religion as seen. He has spent a number of years, as others have, believing that people who challenge CAGW are basically, creationists, right wing nuts, shills for big oil etc. which is the propoganda being put out by the high priests and the faithful.

Now he's beginning to understand that most, but not all of the sceptics, are old guys, many scientists and engineers, who've been here before. It's like the young gungho recruit being introduced to the veterans and survivors and for the first time beginning to understand that maybe, just maybe, they may have a point.

It's a long hard road to being duped and admitting it, and we should welcome and give succour to anyone whose started out on that road.

Jun 17, 2010 at 7:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Geronimo - well put - we shall see what Roger reports on July 5 - or thereabouts.

Based on a model, I have made a prediction that can be compared with observation.

(Clearly I am no climatologist).

Jun 17, 2010 at 7:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Radio 4's Material World this afternoon
(from about 1:30 mins to 9:30 mins), a piece about trying to brief MPs on science issues.

Apparently just 10% of MPs have Science degrees and whilst 23 out of 29 Cabinet Members are Millionaires, only one has a science background.

Phil Willis (remember him?) was on, he has been asked to come back and assist and, of course, as an ex History teacher he should be a great asset.

Only two others were mentioned as doing the "teaching", Lord Winston and (you guessed it) Lord Oxburgh. Phil Willis drools:- "Two of the World's Most Eminent Scientists..."

Yeah. Right. Aren't we blessed?

Jun 17, 2010 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

geronimo "You may be right about Roger Harrabin, or you may be wrong. It is a long road for any human being to take from an entrenched certainty to doubt to disbelief and it is a hard road."

Yes, and we should not forget that it must be even harder for someone who has publically linked their career to their position to make the about face - they will inevitably be denounced and attacked as traitors by colleagues and other people they had close links with.

Jun 17, 2010 at 9:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Far better to help people along the 'road' of discovery, than criticise then for making small tentative steps (then they give up) instead of huge leaps towards the final goal that you desire..

I'm not naive about the bbc, take a look at the critcism(justifiable - i believe) I have made of Richard Black (since movember)- who appears very much a believer/activist - instead of an investigative journalist... still

Jun 18, 2010 at 6:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

For the record:

Harrabin asking for any UK scientists with a scientific inclination:

'I am trying to talk to UK scientists in current academic posts who are sceptical about AGW. I’m struggling to find anyone....'

Harrabin in New Scientist in June reporting on the results of his 'feelers'

'A few months ago, I put out feelers on three sceptic websites asking for sceptical scientists at British universities to contact me anonymously. I could count the positive replies on one hand with a few missing fingers.'

Meanwhile 'The [Royal] society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.'

Funnily enough Harrabin's reporting of the 43 Fellows' letter is non-existent.

Do these facts indicate journalistic integrity or activism?

Jun 19, 2010 at 8:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

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