Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
Sunday
Apr182010

Claes Johnson on AGW postulates

Swedish mathematician Claes Johnson has some interesting criticisms of one of the basic postulates of the AGW hypothesis. The earlier articles he cites seem to be worth checking out too.

Sunday
Apr182010

McKie makes fool of himself

With George Monbiot backing out of Climategate reporting in disgust, the reins at the Guardian seem to have been handed over to Robin McKie, the science editor, who weighs in today with an amusing piece entitled "Doubt climate change - just don't deny it".

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Apr172010

More from Sir Muir and his team

David Holland writes with the latest update on the bizarre attempts by the Russell inquiry to withhold publication of his evidence.

The Russell ICCER emailed me again yesterday. Unfortunately I left early this morning and was not able to report this until now.

Dear Mr Holland,


Thank you for your reply.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Apr172010

Overheard

Readers may be interested in this conversation, which was overheard recently in the Reform Club in London. The speaker appeared to be a senior civil servant..

Click to read more ...

Friday
Apr162010

+++Acton's Eleven - the response+++

Over the course of the day I've made several telephone calls to the Royal Society, without being able to get a response to the simple question of who it was within their ranks who selected the eleven CRU papers for Lord Oxburgh's panel to examine. These papers, you will remember "were selected on the advice of the Royal Society".

Just after 4pm I finally got through to the person responsible and seconds later an emailed response arrived as well. This was fortuitous because I was able to ask some questions on the contents.

Click to read more ...

Friday
Apr162010

Cooling coming

Matt Ridley makes the very interesting observation that, the skies being clear of contrails for the next couple of days, we should be in for some nocturnal cooling.

Friday
Apr162010

Acton's eleven

Steve McIntyre has followed up on the intriguing question of who selected the eleven papers for the Oxburgh panel to assess.

Oxburgh didn’t disclose how they selected their supposedly “representative” and “fair sample”. “Fair sample” and “representative” are statistical terms – terms were used in a report coauthored by a very senior professional statistician in a context where statistics are very much at issue. So I presume that the Royal Society took some care to ensure that the eleven publications actually were “representative” and a “fair sample” – and not ones that were pre-selected by UEA, rather than the Royal Society.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Apr152010

Another university in deep water

Doug Keenan has won his long battle to force Queen's University Belfast to release their tree ring data to him. Another long story of university academics blocking legitimate requests and flouting the law, apparently with impunity.

Full story here.

 

Thursday
Apr152010

Thought for the day

Does anyone else find it a bit odd that almost all of my big media appearances have been in what would generally be considered left-wing outlets?

  • Prospect
  • BBC
  • The Courier  (I think - can't imagine a right wing paper would sell much in Dundee)

There have been citations in right wing outlets - Spectator, Telegraph, and so on - but the interviews and reviews have all come from the left.  Isn't that strange?

Thursday
Apr152010

JG-C has his findings confirmed

John Graham-Cumming, who found what appeared to be an error in HADCRUT a couple of months ago, has had confirmation from the Met Office that his observations are correct. The effect is relatively minor, narrowing the error bands slightly IIRC, but it is another powerful demonstration of the power of audit.

Thursday
Apr152010

Live debate

The link for the live debate is here. Unfortunately my login information hasn't arrived yet. I hope this gets sorted in the near future!

Thursday
Apr152010

Russell inquiry can't report the truth

David Holland emails with the amazing news that the Russell panel is unable to publish his submission because of fears of claims of defamation claims. Here is what the panel told him:

Your submission has not yet been published as the Review's legal advice is that it could be open to a claim of defamation under English law if it publishes the current version of your submission, as it makes references to, and comments upon, a large number of individuals. The Review, unlike the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, does not have Parliamentary privilege.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Apr142010

Times debate

I'm doing an online debate for the Times website tomorrow at 3pm. The theme is "The Climategate inquiry: can we trust the outcome". Opposition is to be confirmed but I understand they're trying to get Bob Ward.

 

Wednesday
Apr142010

Newshour

Here is the link to the BBC World Service Interview I did earlier today. There is also a podcast here.

Wednesday
Apr142010

Intriguing possibility

From Lord Oxburgh's report, paragraph 3 of 26.

The eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in detail are listed in Appendix B. The papers cover a period of more than twenty years and were selected on the advice of the Royal Society. All had been published in international scientific journals and had been through a process of peer review. CRU agreed that they were a fair sample of the work of the Unit. The Panel was also free to ask for any other material that it wished and did so. Individuals on the panel asked for and reviewed other CRU research materials.

So, not only did the Royal Society pick the members of the panel, but they also picked the papers that were to be examined.

I wonder who it was within the Royal Society that might have done this work. I mean, one would need a pretty in-depth understanding of climatology to be able to pick a representative sample of papers from the CRU oeuvre would one not? That sort of understanding isn't found on every street corner. So who might they have turned to?

How about the Royal Society Advisory Group on Climate Change? You know, the one with Phil Jones as a member.

They wouldn't have would they?