The Hockey Team: still no dissent permitted

Judith Curry in the National Journal

Somebody who was named in those e-mails e-mailed me and was rather upset about my lack of support and my speaking about this.

Is Sir Muir the right man for the job?

When the possibility of an inquiry into CRU was announced, it was said that it was important that the chairman had the confidence of sceptics as well as those who believe in the AGW hypothesis.

I don't recall being asked for my opinion on Sir Muir Russell's candidacy, but I thought it would be interesting to see what readers here think about him now that they've had a chance to cast their eyes over his Wiki page.

I'm not sure the question is displaying quite right below, so just in case, the question is: Are you confident that Sir Muir Russell will lead a fair inquiry into CRU?

Quizzes by Quibblo.com

UEA inquiry head announced

A civil service insider, Sir Muir Russell, will head the inquiry into CRU.

His Wiki page is here. Nature report here.

Terms of reference are here.

1. Examine the leaked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.

I think it's probably significant that this inquiry will not look at what are the two most important aspects of the scandal for the AGW hypothesis - namely that CRU staff and their associates appear to have conspired to exclude sceptical views from the scientific literature and also that they appear to have conspired to exclude them from the IPCC reports.

Update on Dec 3, 2009 by Bishop Hill

Reader "Splice" in the comments wonders if journal bullying and IPCC rigging are not covered by the terms of the first item. I think that a half-decent civil servant could exclude these issues under a not-unreasonably strict reading of the terms. This is probably worth clarifying, especially since the inquiry can apparently modify its terms if necessary.

I also wonder about the fact that "code" doesn't seem to be included under the heading of "manipulation".

Has Nature overstepped the mark?

I just had this comment on the previous thread about Nature's disgusting editorial on the Climategate emails:

As an active palaeoclimate scientist and also someone who has published in Nature I am deeply disturbed by this editorial. I have written to the editor and cancelled my subscription. There is no room in science for such closed minds. I fear that the editorial is now running behind the pack. By all accounts there is every chance the UEA investigation will be thorough and watching the Vice-Chancellor on television this evening he certainly was very careful to not defend CRU.

Update on Dec 3, 2009 by Bishop Hill

Pielke Jnr also thinks they may have overstepped the mark. His commenters are pretty appalled too.

McKitrick on Channel 4 news

Ross McKitrick was just on Channel 4 News here in the UK, up against Bob Watson of UEA. It came over to me as a substantial victory for McKitrick.

Back when I was an auditor, I used to come across bureaucrats whose books didn't balance. They had many of the same mannerisms that Watson displayed.

I'll add an link to video if I can find it.

The Report

So my encounter with the BBC is over and they're off to St Andrews for their next interview. There was only one hiccup: I got a nasty shock when the interviewer, Simon Cox, said they wanted to interview me in front of my PC - the office looks like a bomb hit it. I would try to convince you that this is not normal, but that would be a gratuitous lie. Simon and Wesley, the researcher, were very nice though and didn't bat an eyelid.

L-R: Wesley (researcher), Simon, Bishop

The whole thing was very relaxed and I surprised myself by not being particularly nervous. Simon has a rather laconic manner, which suddenly disappears when he slips into super-interested-interviewer mode, and I was slightly taken aback the first time it happened, but after that I found myself waffling away quite happily. Simon clearly knew his stuff, having spent the whole weekend reading the emails - all of them he said - and he also covered the NAS hearings in 2006, so he had spoken to many of the key players before. He seems convinced that there is a story to tell. Interestingly he had also taken in my less-than-complimentary views on the BBC, but seemed completely unconcerned by them.

They're going to talk to McIntyre and Mann as well, so I think there's a fair range of views in there. They were quite interested in my visitor numbers and where people were coming from, so I think there may be a media angle to the story as well.

All in all, I enjoyed it. I just wish I could have tidied (and preferably redecorated) the office first.

Phil Jones to stand down

AP is reporting that Jones will stand down, at least temporarily, pending an investigation that he overstated climate change.

Fair to say then that UEA is not interested whether he breached the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act and whether he sought to oust journal editors from their positions then? Mind you, given that the Vice Chancellor of UEA seems to have been implicated in the breach of FoI laws you can imagine why the authorities might want to limit the terms of reference of the investigation.

Update on Dec 1, 2009 by Bishop Hill

It looks like the bit about the terms of reference being related to "overstating climate change" was AP's spin rather than what UEA actually said, which was that the terms of reference will be decided shortly.