Friday
Sep102010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More Oxburgh reaction
Sep 10, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Andrew Orlowski at the Register picks up the Oxburgh story:
When the University announced the composition and role of the Science Assessment Panel, it billed it as an "independent internal reappraisal of the science". In March the University's Vice Chancellor Lord Acton confirmed the impression, telling the select committee that Oxburgh's enquiry would "reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong".
That was misleading, Oxburgh told MPs yesterday.
TonyN's piece at Harmless Sky is also well worth a look.
Once the official transcript becomes available I expect that this will cause quite a stir. If there was any doubt before that his inquiry was a fiasco, then there can be none now.
Reader Comments (21)
Just found the perfect candidate to head up the next inquiry into UAE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310860/Ryanair-boss-Michael-OLeary-says-global-warming-doesnt-exist.html
I don't think they'd know what had hit them ;) .
Surely the HSI demonstates what is wrong with the 'science' quite clearly. In fact, it is very puzzling why it should not be featured here:
http://royalsociety.org/Royal-Society-Prize-for-Science-Books-2010-shortlist-announced/
Perhaps next year.
The Orlowski article is here.
He seems to have interviewed Stringer after yesterday's Oxburgh hearing, and Stringer seems unhappy that none of the inquiries has looked at the science, contrary to the request of the HoC committee.
I hope that the Bish Report next week is going to call for a proper inquiry.
Andrew Orlowski is linking to a paper by Michael Kelly, but the link just comes back to this site with the address: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/kelly%20paper.pdf
Is there a link to the real paper? Sounds interesting.
Try here
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/kelly%20paper.pdf
The problems are because I've now got my own domain.
@JohnH
Don't confuse the UAE and the UEA.
One is a dysfunctional autocratic place where backward-looking religious views dominate. The other is a country in the middle east.
1. Oxburgh, by his own admission, did not investigate the science. UEA said Oxburgh would.
2. Russell, by his own admission, did not investigate the veracity of the emails. UEA said Russell would.
Two flawed reviews has undermined CRU, UEA and the reputations of both Oxburgh and Russell.
Will the HoC committee be next?
Has anybody anywhere said anything good about Oxburgh's performance in front of the HoC S&T Committee or of his panel's report?
"Independent internal reappraisal of the science".
Independent? - with Oxburgh's business connections?
Internal? - prepared for us by CRU?
Reappraisal of the science? - well, no we didn't actually look at the science...
Otherwise, the title's pretty accurate.
@ Jack Hughes
"Don't confuse the UAE and the UEA.
One is a dysfunctional autocratic place where backward-looking religious views dominate. The other is a country in the middle east."
Lol !
@phillip
I'm sure that Oxburgh's mum will say something nice, sometime. Perhaps she will also tell him to stop digging in that hole as well.
This should be very interesting to watch the walls of that very deep pit the "cream of British Science" has dug for themselves collapse. Any day now, I should think.
Thanks for the link your eminence.
Jack: great joke.
Speaking of jokes, whatever happened to Phil Jone's Mum? I used to love that.
@ Jack Hughes
"Don't confuse the UAE and the UEA.
One is a dysfunctional autocratic place where backward-looking religious views dominate. The other is a country in the middle east."
Must hone my dyslexia so we get more gems like that.
Why come up with a label like Dyslexia for a bad spelling/reading condition !!!
Stringer's comments are extremely significant, it is a pity nobody has picked up on them. A Parliamentarian is asking questions about the physics of climate change, the very assertions upon which politicians make their policy.
Does any one care anymore? Google News hasn't indexed the story, by the way, which is quite unusual.
@JohnH
:) Thanks for that. I've been giggling away to myself for the last 5 minutes.
Just found the perfect candidate to head up the next inquiry into UAE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310860/Ryanair-boss-Michael-OLeary-says-global-warming-doesnt-exist.html
I love the comments there. It seems that everyone but the UEA and their whitewashers now know the Emperor is stark b****** naked. Typical:
For the first and probably the last time I am in agreement with O'Leary
1. Oxburgh, by his own admission, did not investigate the science. UEA said Oxburgh would.
2. Russell, by his own admission, did not investigate the veracity of the emails. UEA said Russell would.
Mac this is damning, two simple sentences to get to the heart of the matter.
And Andrew you're right about Stringer. Can you write up here his relevant key comments? We need these little lacunae to be looked at. Shouted out. Trumpeted IMHO. The missing investigations.
Cheated of substantive questions, lied to on matters of strict scientific fact, serially "misled" concerning the nature and purpose of both Muir Russell's and Oxburgh's extraordinarily biased and self-serving inquiries (sic)-- what's an MP to do?
"A fact so dread," he faintly said, "Extinguishes all hope." (Lewis Carroll, "Sylvie and Bruno" [1889]).
Yes Mac, hit it on the head. :)
So, the science, and the emails, fell through the cracks between the three inquiries.
For 3 inquiries read the 3 monkeys
See no emails, hear no emails, speak no emails
Finally found the will to watch Oxburgh's performance tonight on the HoC site. A complete and utter charlatan - I can only assume the Committee were unaware of his affiliations to Falck Renewables and the Carbon Capture and Storage Association:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7071751.ece
Maybe the intervening election meant this minor conflict of interest slipped through the gaps of the Committee membership changes, although I'm surprised Graham Stringer didn't question Oxburgh about his own position when O started banging on about unsalubrious commercial influences. Perhaps by this stage in the proceedings GS had concluded it was a waste of breath to ask the man for a useful response.
As TonyN says - roll on the transcript....
And thanks Bish for hosting Prof. Kelly's remarks - I'm a bit unclear about when he made them as they are dated end of March yet he refers to having heard presentations from the scientists (Subsequent Thoughts point 3 - so perhaps the STs are an undated addition to his original notes?). IMO his point about the IPCC is of note and it is also interesting that he appears, in ST point 4, to think the group was expected to pronounce on the "science" - maybe they decided to set the "qualification" so narrow that the controversial science was excluded! As ever, apologies if these points have already been made - not following so closely at the moment.