Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 21 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 20 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Bob Carter in Quadrant | Main | Josh 82 »

Welcome back my friends... the show that never ends. Yes, the story of Muir Russell's inquiry unfolds a little further, with David Holland digging a little further into the details of the financial arrangements for the inquiry. UEA look like they are going to end up in trouble with the ICO again. Full story at Climate Audit.

In the meantime, David Roberts of Grist looks at the various Climategate inquiries, including the Russell inquiry, and shows just how desperately ill-informed he is:

The U.K.'s Royal Society (its equivalent of the National Academies) ran an investigation that found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice."

No it didn't - the inquiry was run by UEA and the Royal Society merely helped find people who could be relied upon to come up with the right answer (we have the emails showing this, Mr Roberts) and then pretended that they had selected the papers chosen (we have the emails showing this too - but don't worry Mr Roberts, nobody expects you to do any investigation either).

The University of East Anglia appointed respected civil servant Sir Muir Russell

You're kidding, Mr Roberts, surely? Russell - the man who closed off the construction project on the Scottish Parliament building ten times over budget - respected?

to run an exhaustive, six-month independent inquiry;

He didn't even attend the interviews with the principals. He didn't interview any of the complainants?

he concluded that "the honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."

That's because they didn't look for any!

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (24)

Did we really expect any other official result?

Feb 28, 2011 at 11:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBill Sticker

"he concluded that "the honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."

Muir Russell po-facedly pointed out to the MPs that asking Jones about deleting emails might result in the identification of an offense by Jones, and therefore that question could not be asked. You don't get much inquiring for 300k these days. It's cheaper to buy the windmills (and their backup gas turbines).

Feb 28, 2011 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

“to the show that never ends”

Yup Bish, Brian Rix got nearly two decades out of such scenarios:-

“Whitehall farce is a descriptive term applied to a series of improbable events that caused grief at the time to everyone involved but could—perhaps only with distance or hindsight—be considered comical.
The original Whitehall farce, from which this term arose, refers to a series of stage plays at the Whitehall theatre in London, directed by Brian Rix, between 1950 and 1969.

The typical Whitehall plot derived its entertainment value from situations involving a chaotic and unlikely series of accidents that caused drama and panic for the characters involved but amusement for the audience.”

Feb 28, 2011 at 11:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

CA is down at the time of writing.... Hmmpfff

Mar 1, 2011 at 12:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterChilli

Ah, yes, what they need is a better grade of white wash.

Mar 1, 2011 at 1:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

the debate in Australia is almost surreal - no-one dares mention GW, AGW, CAGW or CARBON DIOXIDE:

28 Feb: Quadrant: Shhsshh … don’t talk about the science
by Bob Carter
Yet as I write, and after almost 4 days of saturation press coverage, not a single mainstream media commentator appears to have discussed the real issue at hand.
That issue is, of course, supposedly dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. And note the two adjectives “supposedly” and “dangerous”, for both are critically important to the debate that we are failing to have.
Instead of analysing the global warming issue – about which, more below – press commentary continues to endlessly recycle tired, stale, sanctimonious and entirely misleading clichés about carbon pollution, climate change and energy efficiency. Everyone, it seems, has a strong opinion, yet almost none of these opinions are grounded in the empirical science facts that society used to view as the essential basis for good public policy decisions...

just as Australia had to roll back its solar program -

27 Feb: Washington Post: David Nakamura: D.C. reneges on aid to install solar panels
Dozens of District residents who installed solar panels on their homes under a government grant program promoting renewable energy have been told they will not be reimbursed thousands of dollars as promised because the funds were diverted to help close a citywide budget gap...

Mar 1, 2011 at 1:24 AM | Unregistered Commenterpat you install a solar panel in the expectation of a kick-back...the kick-back does not happen so what is the recompesnse for the tax-payer?

Mar 1, 2011 at 1:47 AM | Unregistered Commentergraeme

for what it is worth, I have asked questions of my MP...let us see

Mar 1, 2011 at 2:16 AM | Unregistered Commentergraeme

my thoughts...this needs to mo viral

Mar 1, 2011 at 2:19 AM | Unregistered Commentergraeme

fellow Brits...we either all complain mo our MPs or remain like sitting ducks...this could go viral very easily if we put our minds to it

Mar 1, 2011 at 2:33 AM | Unregistered Commentergraeme

We have various "journalists" like Revkin, Kloor, ... that would claim to be interested in the various nuances and the issues.

And here we have what seems to be a black and white, yes or no, up or down question: Did the various reviews exonerate the scientists as Real Climate et. al., claim, or did they fail to properly investigate the issues.

And yet, none of the so called real journalists like Revkin or Kloor seem interested in even examining the issue in any manner! They won't give it 30 minutes to presumably debunk your obvious nonsense (as RC might claim it.)

I think even Judith Curry might want to check out the various claims that the investigations failed to investigate.

I know for me, that when I read through the various posts here and at CA with the documents about the investigations, I know that went a very long way to convincing me who was telling the truth about this.

Is there value in getting a "very serious journalist" to take a look, if so, how, and who?

Mar 1, 2011 at 6:10 AM | Unregistered Commenteranon

I just looked at the recent post titles down the RHS of the page, then compounded the error by reading the first few comments listed - felt like I just wiped a good 10 points off my IQ!

Any more links like that Bish and I'll be a drooling mess by the end of the week :^)

Mar 1, 2011 at 6:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Anon - come on, most journalists are not interested in or smart enough to discern truth. They are just pawns in a much bigger game and don't realise that the agenda is already set for them.

Mar 1, 2011 at 8:53 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Cameron believes that global warming is the biggest problem he has to deal with - he said so in an interview on AlJazeera last week. It is official UK government thinking that the failure to conclude a treaty at Copenhagen was "a strategic mistake". Expect no change on the government front. All three of the present party political leaders (Cameron, Clegg and Miliband) share this belief and it informs their actions. It is the party line. It is embedded in the Climate Change Act.

It will require immense public pressure to overturn this thinking. Here in the UK it requires you continue to write to your MP about it, pointing out the errors in their thinking and, even if their thinking remains unshaken, the utter failure of their so-called solutions (solar and wind power) actually to solve the problem they believe to exist.

It is now about three months and counting since I asked my MP if the government had evaluated the effectiveness of solar and wind power in Denmark, Germany and Spain. So far no reply. The silence is deafening.

Mar 1, 2011 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered Commenteroldtimer

Crikey - this is much better than the bunny boiler ....

Mar 1, 2011 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

I have written to my MP to ask how he believes it can be an 'independent' inquiry when the chairman is paid up to £300k by the people he is inquiring into. I also asked him if he would bring this up with the Norwrwich South MP.

I won't hold my breath.....

Mar 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterSnotrocket

it reminds me of something from Beachcomber to the effect that "Justice must not only be seen to be done. It must be seen to be believed."

Mar 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Is the title of this post a reference to prog rock trio Emerson Lake & Palmer?

[BH adds: I'm amazed it took so long for anyone to spot the allusion!]

Mar 1, 2011 at 6:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterStonyground

So now you want an inquiry on the inquiry...?

You fail to mention that the Grist report also mentions other inquiries, including "A British government investigation run by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee found that while the CRU scientists could have been more transparent and responsive to freedom-of-information requests, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct".

So... it is important for all reading this article to leave with the understanding that while one may be able to pick holes in one inquiry (and you don't really give good evidence to support this), this is not convincing with regard to the charge of falsification of science.

Mar 1, 2011 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew


Keep up - we've already had the inquiry into the inquiries!

Mar 1, 2011 at 10:30 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I would donate $25 into a fund that puts you, McIntyre, and Revkin at the resort hotel of your choice for two days for the three of you to go over the various debunkings of the investigations.

Mar 1, 2011 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered Commenteranon please keep up...the Muir Russell was supposed to be independent...just how independent is an enquiry that cost £300k, paid by the party meant to be exonerated? presumably, this meant that teachers did not get paid...just to exonerate a shabby institution.

Mar 2, 2011 at 12:15 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Found this great quote about the Royal Society from 1973 - some things never change...

"How can a mere philosopher devise criteria distinguishing between good and bad science, knowing it is an inutterable mystic secret of the Royal Society?" Imre Lakatos, ‘Lecture One on the Scientific Method’ (1973)

Mar 2, 2011 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterR2

Diogenes, won't you join the dance? Without doubt this inquiry does not give the appearance of being thorough or unbiased, but that does not mean that it is not. Your comment merely addressed the same inquiry that the good Bishop was talking about. And, I might say, you added heat without much light.

Mar 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew

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>