[Update: I've just noticed that Gardner's article goes back to May, so it predates some of the findings about how the Oxburgh report was put together. I'll leave the post here anyway, because it's still instructive to see what Dan Gardner said in the light of what we know now.]
There's an interesting piece on global warming sceptics in the Ottawa Citizen, by Dan Gardner. I've never heard of Mr Gardner before but the Telegraph's Tom Chivers called him "the wonderful Dan Gardner" so I thought I would take a look at the article, which is called "Weighing the evidence".
It's well worth it because it turned out to be silly enough to get me laughing out loud. He starts off by discussing the famous Stephen Schneider quote about "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have." and goes on to say that sceptics never add Scheider's corrollary about "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Now this is wrong, because of course there are lots of people out here who try to be honest and will sacrifice effectiveness to remain so. Which is why, in The Hockey Stick Illusion I do mention Schneider's corollary.
Gardner can be forgiven for not having read HSI, although perhaps we can offer up some mild criticism for sounding off in such forthright fashion about sceptics without having done so. However, his article shifts from mildly wrong to...well...extraordinary, when he gets onto the question of Climategate.
Two investigations of the leaked e-mails were launched, one by the British Parliament, the other by the university. Combined, they represented one of the most thorough reviews of scientific work ever conducted. Neither found misconduct.
Yes, you read that right. The Oxburgh Report was part of one of the "most thorough reviews of scientific work every conducted"; all fifteen person days of it. All ten pages. A review where the accused gets to opine on what evidence should be examined; where the accusers can't present challenge the defence's evidence. Where the investigation was deliberately directed away from the most serious allegations.
Is he serious?