Russell review to be a whitewash

When Sir Muir Russell's inquiry into the goings-on at CRU was announced, many were sceptical of whether the results would be anything other than the traditional civil service whitewash. With that in mind I dropped a message to the CRU press office to try to find out exactly what kind of a review was going to be held.

This is what I asked:

1. Is there any significance in the fact that this is a "review" rather than an "inquiry"?

2. Will the review be open to external observers? Will there be public hearings for example?

3. The first point on the terms of reference in your press release indicate that the review will look at the question of "manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice". This seems very limited in scope. For example, will the review examine the possibility of manipulation of results through the data processing as well as through the data itself? In other words, will it examine code as well as data? Will the review look at the other misdemeanours that are alleged to have taken place, for example attempts by UEA scientists to undermine peer review and other procedures in the journals, rigging of the IPCC review and breaches of its procedures? If not, why not?

5. There is an allusion in one of the emails to the vice chancellor apparently being aware of an attempt to avoid a Freedom of Information request. Will this be considered by the review?

Unexpectedly, I got a very fast response, from a press officer at UEA. This was as follows:

Thanks for your email.

The University has made it clear that all issues arising from allegations as a result of emails stolen from the CRU and published without permission on the web will be considered by an independent review.This will be led by Sir Muir Russell and it is expected that it will report by Spring 2010. Statements regarding the independent review and other related issues are available at: www.uea.ac.uk.

Any further statements will be available from this website and circulated via the wire services.

OK, so we're good on the scope, but we're none the wiser on the nature of the review or inquiry or whatever. I've pressed the, ahem, press officer for a response on the first two points, but he hasn't responded. In seems likely therefore that the inquiry will be held behind closed doors.

I conclude that the intention is to whitewash the affair.

Readers of this blog saw this coming. The results of my survey into sceptic attitudes to Sir Muir were as follows:

I trust him: 2%

I don't trust him: 56%

Don't know: 43%.

This was based on 717 responses, so only 14 people were impressed by Sir Muir's credentials. It was said at the time the review was announced that Sir Muir needed to have the confidence of the sceptic community. It is clear from these results that he doesn't. This, together with the suggestion that he intends to hold the inquiry in private mean that he should really stand down.

He will not do so, of course. He has some whitewash to apply.

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.