Another problem with the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report seems to have emerged. Apparently a sceptic blog in the Czech Republic is reporting that the IPCC's conclusions on the lack of a solar influence on climate were based on a single paper by Lean and Frohlich and the IPCC ignored reviewers' objections over the lack of support for the idea. What is worse, Lean and Frohlich are accused of adjusting their data in an inappropriate fashion.
The BBC Editors' blog gives us a glimpse of their forthcoming Panorama documentary about global warming in the wake of Climategate.
They interview Bob Watson, John Christy, Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Mann, the latter quoted as 'regretting the way his so-called "hockey-stick graph" was put in the spotlight by politicians' (!)
Read the whole thing here.
Tip of the hat to Marcel Crok for alerting me to the release of the names of the chapter authors of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report.
No Briffa, Jones or Mann, but the paleoclimate chapter includes Tim Osborn. Having someone from CRU onboard might well be seen as somewhat controversial if not downright provocative. Other familiar names are Eystein Jansen, Bette Otto-Bleisner and Juerg Luterbacher.
Marcel advises that many of the authors were also on board for AR4. Perhaps nobody else wants to be involved any more.
Nick Barnes, the man behind Clear Climate Code, is putting together a petition to the Interacademies Council inquiry into the IPCC. This calls for the opening up of the IPCC on a number of fronts, particularly regarding the underlying research papers and their data and code.
Sign up here.
The most interesting of the attachments to Professor Hand's emails is a paper by one of his fellow panellists, Michael Kelly, who is Professor of Electronics at Cambridge.
The paper records Professor Kelly's impressions as he reads through some CRU papers. I can't really do justice to this paper as a short summary. For the moment, I've extracted the relevant pages from the full download and you can just read it. I think Steve M will probably have something to say on Kelly's work, which seems fairly frank.
The download is here.
McIntyre's take on the Kelly paper is here.
Slowly, but surely, the curtain is being lifted on Lord Oxburgh's inquiry into the science of CRU. Today I received a response to my FoI request for the emails of Sir Brian Hoskins and Professor David Hand (both of Imperial College, London) related to the Oxburgh inquiry. They are going to make a bit of a splash I think.
The emails can be downloaded here. There's a file for each man's correspondence and another for the attachments to Hand's emails. There's a lot of administrative stuff, but there is much of interest and some that made me laugh out loud.
I particularly liked the bit Oliver Morton of the Economist asks Oxburgh who chose the papers for the inquiry. Oxburgh replies:
Thanks for your message - the answer is that I don't know! What I received was a list from the university which I understand was chosen by the Royal Society The contact with the RS was I believe through [redacted - probably Martin Rees] but I don't know who he consulted. [Name redacted], when I asked him, agreed that the original sample was fair.
This is an excerpt from a paper by Deepak Lal, an economist at UCLA. It dates from the year 2000.
My friend John Flemming who was then chief economist at the Bank of England, and also chairing a subcommittee of one of the UK's research councils, told me on reading the lecture that I would get nowhere by taking on the scientists who, at a meeting he attended to distribute funds for climate research, had explicitly said that they were not going to behave like economists by disagreeing with each other!
As part of his ongoing investigations into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, David Holland has used FoI to get hold of a pile of emails from Professor Brian Hoskins, then of the University of Reading and now at Imperial College. Readers will remember that Professor Hoskins amusingly rubber-stamped the list of papers chosen by UEA for the Oxburgh report.
Today was the school fete. I was on carparking duty. Health and Safety has decreed that someone wearing a high-vis jacket must be in attendance at the carpark throughout the event. For the first hour, I was that person.
The fete began at 1pm. By the time I arrived at the carpark at 12:59, it was just about full, parents having proven remarkably adept at parking their cars without my assistance. This is perhaps not surprising as most of them use the carpark on a daily basis when they are on the school run.
Over the next hour I waved a few latecomers away and sat in the sunshine reading the newspaper. My high-vis jacket was quite useful as a cushion. I must have turned away about ten cars, most of which were subsequently parked in the road outside the carpark. I wasn't sure if my remit extended to the street so I left them to do this unassisted. They too seemed to manage quite well without me.
Later I went down to the fete itself. The tents had red and white tape tied to the guy ropes. This is apparently a rule laid down by Health and Safety. The scones were unbuttered, since this is not permitted by Health and Safety either. There were no sandwiches,since these apparently pose an unacceptable risk to the public.
The risk assessment had concluded that a tug of war is too dangerous so we didn't do that this year. I was reminded of the school sports day last week when parents were asked if anyone had safety concerns over their children taking part in the three-legged race. Apparently Health and Safety will be angry if this question isn't asked.
Strange day really.
In the comments on the Collide-a-scape thread, Judy Curry has issued a challenge to mainstream climate science:
I am laying down the gauntlet, [The Hockey Stick Illusion] really needs to discussed and rebutted by the paleo researchers and the IPCC defenders.
Most of the responses are fallacious so far - along the lines of "a bad person liked this book". Let's see if anything more substantial appears.