What's missing

OK readers, you have work to do.

Submissions for the Russell review are due by the end of the month and it will require some concentrated effort by the community to put something together so quickly.

Here's the Issues for Examination document published by Sir Muir and his team. The first question is "Does this cover everything it should do?" The document covers several broad areas, with more detailed questions under each heading. Are there any broad areas missing? Are there more detailed questions to be added under existing headings?

Here are the broad headings.

1. The allegation of ignoring potential problems in deducing palaeotemperatures from tree ring data that might undermine the validity of the so-called “hockey-stick” curve.

2. The allegation that CRU has colluded in attempting to diminish the significance of data that might appear to conflict with the 20th century global warming hypothesis

3. It is alleged that proxy temperature deductions and instrumental temperature data have been improperly combined to conceal mismatch between the two data series

4. It is alleged that there has been an improper bias in selecting and adjusting data so as to favour the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and details of sites and the data adjustments have not been made adequately available

5. It is alleged that there have been improper attempts to influence the peer review system and a violation of IPCC procedures in attempting to prevent the publication of opposing ideas.

6. The scrutiny and re-analysis of data by other scientists is a vital process if hypotheses are to rigorously tested and improved. It is alleged that there has been a failure to make important data available or the procedures used to adjust and analyse that data, thereby subverting a crucial scientific process.

7. The keeping of accurate records of datasets, algorithms and software used in the analysis of climate data.

8. Response to Freedom of Information requests.

Answers in the comments please.

On being a country boy

One of the problems with living in the country, with its early-to-bed, early-to-rise ways is that you're not geared to the daily cycle of TV news.

Someone from the BBC emailed a couple of times last night asking for a reaction to the Campbell resignation, but unfortunately your humble blogger was already fast asleep. I dare say they managed OK without me. And fame can wait.

Only one error in IPCC reports

A video of Rajendra Pachauri with some startling statements about the recent IPCC scandals. Apparently the Himalayan glacier melting thing is the only error in the IPCC reports. The other issues aren't errors at all. Oh yes, and it's OK to use non-peer reviewed literature in IPCC reports.

The Richard and Roger show

Richard North and Roger Harrabin go head to head on the subject of Climategate on the Gaby Logan show on BBC Radio. Richard isn't very gentle.

Audio starts from about ten minutes.

Channel Four on the Campbell resignation

Channel Four's website report on the resignation of Philip Campbell is here, with a mention for this site and some soundbites from Steve M.

Campbell resigns

Channel Four news here in the UK has just reported the Philip Campbell has stepped down from Sir Muir Russell's review because of the statements to Chinese radio that were reported here. This was undoubtedly the correct thing for him to do.

There was some discussion on the Channel Four report of sceptics seeing his departure as "taking a scalp" - I don't see this as being the case. The panel needs to be unbiased, without predetermined positions on the issue of climate change or climate science - these are, in essence, Sir Muir's words. Campbell clearly didn't meet this requirement and his resignation therefore became inevitable.

A replacement will obviously have to be found, and I am going to make some suggestions to Sir Muir as to where such a person might be found. In the meantime we still have the issue of Geoffrey Boulton, the ex-UEA man who has spoken out strongly in the past in favour of the global warming position. Although he's not as wildly inappropriate as Philip Campbell his position on the panel still makes it look somewhat unbalanced. I would suggest that either he needs to go too or he needs to be balanced with somebody of sceptical views.

11 days later

Sir Muir has taken three months to form his team and to decide what they are going to examine. We, the public now have eleven working days to make our written submissions.

Russell review under way

Updated on Feb 11, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Updated on Feb 11, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Updated on Feb 11, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Updated on Feb 11, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Updated on Feb 11, 2010 by Bishop Hill

The BBC seems to be first out of the block in reporting on the Russell Review's first appearance at a news conference an hour ago.

The most interesting part is the identities of the panellists:

• Geoffrey Boulton, general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Professor of Geology)
• Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief for Nature journal
• Professor Peter Clarke of the University of Edinburgh (a particle physicist by background, he now heads the e-Science Centre at Edinburgh)
• David Eyton, head of research and technology at BP
• Professor Jim Norton, vice president for the Chartered Institute for IT.

There seem to have been no changes to the scope of the review.

Click to read more ...

He never said it

Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen

Well, well, well. According to the Independent, Sir John Houghton's best-known aphorism never actually passed his lips.

It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed.

The source appears to have been an Australian journalist who said it appeared in Houghton's 1994 book on global warming. This appears not to have been true.

I wonder why Sir John kept mum for all these years?

Andy Lacis comments

Andy Lacis has added some comments to the DotEarth thread prompted by my article here. This some excerpts:

First, let me state clearly that I view the IPCC AR4 Report as a very successful and useful scientific summary of our current understanding of global climate and global climate change....

...I believe that the review process needs to be clear and to the point so as not to be misunderstood, i.e., it is both barrels at point blank range, whenever warranted. From this you can see that science, or at least some aspects of the scientific process, make for a significantly ruthless game. If people perceive that your science might be questionable, they are expected to let you know about it in no uncertain terms. That is in part why the scientific review process has evolved to be anonymous. Science is about factual correctness, and not about consensus...

Click to read more ...

More IPCC findings

Fact checking the IPCC, particularly WG2 is providing a rich source of material for climate bloggers. Jeff ID has been looking at some claims made about wildfires in British Columbia and finds that the citations are to two newspaper articles and a tourism newsletter. There is also some doubt as to whether the citations actually support the claims made.

Meanwhile Climategate.com reports on some interesting findings about NASA/GISS's adjustments to temperatures in Australia. The "f" word is used.

Calls for Pachauri to go are growing.

Russell review to start work

Nearly three months after Climategate, Sir Muir Russell's review of the implications finally gets off the ground today. Well, he's going to make an announcement about starting work anyway.

Sir Muir Russell, who is chair of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and former principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, will explain the review's remit at 11am at a press conference and clarify which issues it will investigate. He will also set out the review's work plan and processes, invite submissions and evidence, explain the inquiry's openness and publication policy and provide an estimate for when he will report back. He will also introduce his team.

Libel reform

By the way, has everyone signed the petition to have the UK's libel laws reformed?

It's worse in context

One of the delights of rising visitor numbers is that you start to get noticed by a whole lot more people who disagree with you and who come over to stick the boot in. The attention is always welcome although I'm sure there will be a certain kudos among those people who stuck the boot in (in the nicest possible way) when nobody had heard of me (hi Frank!).

Click to read more ...

Comment not free

Fred Pearce has another article up about the Hockey Stick, part of the Guardian's review of Climategate. We are invited to leave our comments and annotations.

Unfortunately that's less of an option for me, since the Guardian has put me on moderation. This means that my comments take 24 hours or so to get posted. It's not really possible to have meaningful input in these circumstances - rather like trying to take part in a public meeting by post - so I'll put some comments up here when I get the time.

Click to read more ...