Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Black scared of comments | Main | Peer review in the response »

Oxburgh's Eleven in the reponse

Sir John Beddington admits that the multiproxy studies, which had were central to the Climategate allegations, were not examined by the Oxburgh panel. Instead they looked at a list of papers chosen by UEA itself, some of which were so obscure that even CRU's most ardent critics had never heard of them.

In our view, the debate about the 11 publications examined by the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) is frustrating. While there is no doubt that the papers chosen were central to CRU’s work and went to the heart of the criticisms directed at CRU, the allegations that certain areas of climate science such as key multiproxy temperature reconstructions were purposely overlooked could have been disregarded if the SAP had set out its process of selection in a more transparent manner. (Paragraph 49)

What, then can one say about his concluding remarks?

We note the Committee’s conclusion that the selection of papers examined by the SAP was representative of the work of CRU in all areas in which allegations had been made. We note that once again the primary concern of the Committee related to transparency and communication—in this case with regard to the process for selecting the sample of papers
considered by the SAP—rather than any conscious decision to purposely overlook certain  areas of work.

So to review: Sir John persuades Lord Oxburgh to head the panel despite Lord O having a conflict of interest. Lord O misleads public, parliament and government about the nature of his review. Lord O fails to look at the most criticised papers, having accepted a list proposed by the people he's supposed to be investigating. Sir John congratulates Lord O on having played a blinder. Sir John notes that Lord O has misled everyone and failed to look at the papers everyone is upset about and says it doesn't matter. Sir John says that CRU's science is still sound.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (19)

We're through the looking glass here people......

May 6, 2011 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuck

Your "reviews" are what you do best!

May 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark W

I don't think even the writers of "Yes Minister" could have come up with a storyline like this.

May 6, 2011 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

John 11:35.

May 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterMique

John 11:35

This did not seem to encourage the witness at all: he kept shifting from one foot to the other, looking uneasily at the Queen, and in his confusion he bit a large piece out of his teacup instead of the bread-and-butter.

May 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

Bish, what's the source of this statement?

May 6, 2011 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered Commentermpaul

Ah, never mind, I see it now. I was reading the posts reverse chronologically.

May 6, 2011 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered Commentermpaul

Business as usual, in fact...

May 6, 2011 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Fowle

UEA have accepted that there were weaknesses in their system, and in pockets of their culture, for
dealing with requests for information. We are pleased that they are working towards rectifying this. (Paragraph 89)

Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act) and Regulation 19 of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) make it an offence intentionally to prevent the disclosure of requested information. Under the current legislative provisions prosecutions for such offences must be brought within six months of the offence occurring. The Government will continue to work with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to determine the extent that alleged offences, under section 77 of the FOI Act and Regulation 19 of the EIR, have not been prosecuted as a result of the current provisions.

May 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

When trying to understand the climate science establishment, one must always remember --

"It's the stupidity, stupid."

May 6, 2011 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan

Trebles and Knighthoods all round!

May 6, 2011 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

Lord Oxburgh the Blinder Player
Lord Beddington the Drinks Bearer

I am reminded of this scene from Blackadder. (Blackadder the Pigeon Murderer)

May 6, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Jack Savage

Interestingly, Sir John sits on the Cabinet Office committee that considers awarding of honours to scientists.

May 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Oxburgh testified that he did not review the science. So the selection and delivery of the papers was simply a dramatic device intended to deceive the audience -- a sort of Kabuki Theater production. Beddington is essentially criticizing Oxburgh for flaws in his theatrical production.. "Had the lime light simply been directed at the squire handing the papers to the Lord, it would have created a more captivating illusion for the audience". Unbelievable.

May 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM | Unregistered Commentermpaul

Am I the only one on here who suffers from Autism

So.........did anyone get it?

Chapter 11, 25th paragraph of John Beddington's copy of Alice in Wonderland

May 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

Sir John Beddington and his fellows insist on burning every bridge that they cross. If they believe that they are being wise then I am certain that they will be proved mistaken. If they are as desperate as they seem then they should be shunned. On thing that can be said with certainty, there is not a man among them with an aptitude for politics.

May 6, 2011 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Translation: "Bloody peasants!"

May 6, 2011 at 9:16 PM | Unregistered Commentermojo

Theo Goodwin - 'There is not a man among them with an aptitude for politics...'
On the contrary - I suspect they have PRECISELY the qualities to ascend to the highest office offered to them....!

May 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

It seems apposite that the author of 'Alice in Wonderland' was a university don, a mathmatician with clerical qualifications and a strange desire for the company of 'Alice'. When I was a kid and first read the book for myself I found it quite creepy, made more so by the illustrations.
I know now that much of the book was actually about theoretical mathmatics; I had a look through an 'Alice'-themed shop in Oxford a few years ago and it brought back all of the creepiness that bothered me all those years ago.

May 8, 2011 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

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>