Wednesday
Sep082010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Oxburgh reactions
Sep 8, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Media I'm not sure which members of the press corps were watching the Oxburgh hearing, either in person or over the web. The only reaction I've found so far is this from the Guardian Eco twitter page:
Interesting that Lord Oxburgh said he was not looking at the #climategate science. Looks like that fell through the cracks between him + MR
Update:
The Guardian's full reaction is now up and picks up many of the major points - Keenan, Kelly and the misleading of Parliament.
Oxburgh: UEA vice-chancellor was wrong to tell MPs he would investigate climate research
Reader Comments (23)
Was he looking at any of the science? That was supposed to be his remit, wasn't it?
Some thoughts on Oxburgh at the House of Commons:
Load of waffle at the start to pre-empt the questions about the choice of the panel and the shortness of the report. Should have been pressed on why he apparently kept no written papers about it.
If there were nine definitions of "trick" in the OED, what made him choose the one he did?
He hasn't read the emails- so what is he doing holding forth about Nature trick? Hide the decline got left out.
He never answered Pamela Black's "on what evidence did you base your criticism of sceptics?" Pity she didn't purse it. Glad to know he now thinks some of us are quite intelligent.
He said "Counter- productive to make the enquiry public" (" media circus") This one is televised- is this one a "media circus." No.
Why should identity of someone who is a sceptic, but apparently on the panel, be kept secret?
Inaccurate recall of who exactly chose the papers and if the RS was involved.
I thought he was definitely uncomfortable, too much smiling, indicating I'm one of you chaps.... and a lot of fiddling with his papers etc. Very long pauses for thought at a couple of points.
Questioning should have been much more insistent on answers.
Answer about Kelly's comments was very poor.
They shouldn't have let him waffle on at the end about CO2 and Venus and Mars, should have been stopped. Nor should he have been allowed to give his uncalled-for opinion on FOI, he was there to answer questions not give statements.
What was the business at the end about a letter to Osborne?
Meant to say "pursue it".
Try again
Here's the Guardian's take on the evidence hearing today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/signup/2009/sep/30/green-light-email-sign-up
Seems that what Oxburgh told MPs today contradicts what Edward Acton originally said the inquiry would cover.
James
UEA submission to HoCSaTC, "Alongside Sir Muir Russell’s Review, we have decided on an additional scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself."
Oxburgh reply to Stringer, HoCSaTC, that the UEA submission, "was innaccurate".
UEA clearly stated that Lord Oxburgh's remit was to assess the science. Lord Oxburgh on a second occasion, first to McIntyre, has said it was not.
There is no way for UEA to hide on this most substantive of points. If submission to HoCSaTC "was innaccurate" as Lord Oxburgh states then the UEA was obligated to inform the HoCSaTC of this change.
Here is a key paragraph from HoCSaTC report, "The two (UEA) reviews or inquiries need to map their activities to ensure that there are no unmanaged overlaps or gaps. If there are, the whole process could be undermined."
Oxburgh did not review the science.
Russell did not review the veracity of the ClimateGate emails.
As things stand there two huge gaping holes in both reviews.
It will be interesting what Russell has to say, for it appears that UEA, Oxburgh and Russell went out of there way to pull the wool over MPs eyes. It makes the HoCSaTC look naive.
Government reaction maybe?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100908/tuk-uk-britain-science-fa6b408.html
UK may cull "mediocre" university research!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science
Stringer asked why Oxburgh had decided not to publish the notes made by committee members during their deliberations.
"If you put [comments from panel-member Professor Michael Kelly] next to the conclusions in the Oxburgh report then they look strange," he said.
"I think people would read the Oxburgh report differently if the minutes of the meetings that had taken place and the comments of the professorial investigators were also there."
Here is the Guardian's take on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science
Oxburgh to HoCSaTC, "I think that was inaccurate. This had to be done rapidly. This was their concern. They really wanted something within a month. There was no way our panel could evaluate the science."
Why did UEA want this review to be done "rapidly"?
Again, why did UEA not inform HoCSaTC that their original submission "was inaccurate"?
Butterfingers.
At least Stringer is aware of the difference between science and climatology (as championed by Oxburgh et al).
Anyway, the summary is that someone is lying to parliament.
And laughably the inquiry is ultimately about honesty.
Remember this:-
"Dear Ron
Much appreciated the hard work put into the review, general view is a blinder played. As we discussed at HoL, clearly the drinks are on me!
Best wishes, John"
I wonder what Sir John is saying now?
The whitewashers are quite comfortable in letting you know that they never intended to do an actual review and that it is just too darn bad.
Green Sand -- as details come to light about the the true conduct of this review, real questions need to be asked about exactly what Sir John meant. Was he complicit in a plan to deceive Parliament?
"general view is a blinder played"
Shame the committee didn't ask Ron what Sir John might have meant...
What astonished me was the good man's comments to the effect that they did not analyze the science. Then he pointed out that the science was just fine, thank you very much.
So which is it? Did not analyze? Did analyze and it's just fine?.
Did he ever get to the point where one could ascertain the truth?
Sir Muir Russell got £40,000 for 15 meetings. How much did Oxburgh get? Is gravy a biofuel?
The truth will out:
http://climateaudit.org/
I presume that the transcript of this meeting will be published in due course, like this one on Tuesday 27 July 2010 with Lord Rees
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/uc369-ii/uc36901.htm
a pertinent snippet of which is:
Q77 Graham Stringer: I think the last point is well made. I do not think David Willetts’s point, that you referred to, is as well made because the three inquiries - the inquiry by this Committee, the inquiry by Muir Russell and the inquiry by ---
Lord Rees of Ludlow : Oxburgh
Q78 Graham Stringer: None of them looked really looked at the science, and where they stepped over the science, as Oxburgh did, he said that he was rather surprised that methods that depended on advanced statistics had not used advanced statisticians; he said that they had also used subjective methods. So I think David Willetts was wrong to say that somehow these had validated the science, because the science was not looked at.
Looks like the Lord Oxburgh "interview" has just provided the Bishop with an additional chapter for his forthcoming Valentine's Day missive.
The Guardian's reaction to today’s events should increase interest as they have picked up on some very salient points. This will make it very difficult for the MSM to ignore or refute out of hand the GWPF review.
Just tell it how it is!
On the UEA website (http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/oxburgh) it is called the "Report by Lord Oxburgh’s Science Assessment Panel".
If it didn't review the science how can it have assessed it ?
Interesting to see that a good proportion - maybe a majority - of the Grauniad comments are critical of Oxburgh, climate "science" and so on.
Things have changed perceptibly since November last year.
Oxburgh panel announced Mon, 22 Mar 2010. Finished Thurs 8th April.
18 days total including 4 days Easter Bank Holiday 2,3,4,5th April + 1 weekend 27, 28 March.
How much did you say he got paid?
This, what, whitewash student
Didn't study the science
Didn't inform the HoCSC about the change of remit
Didn't question sceptics
Didn't allow only truly disinterested panel members
Didn't state his own conflict of interests
Didn't give clear answers about the authorship of the list of publications studied
Didn't study the emails
Didn't involve consideration of the lack of statistical competence
Didn't make clear his brief time involved
Didn't criticize the failure to keep data
Didn't keep own notes
Yet he's called a responsible investigator into integrity of conduct
Heh??????