Bishop Hill Boulton is staying
Feb 15, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell Sir Muir Russell and his team have rejected the concerns of those of those sceptics who have questioned his suitability as a panel member.
Sir Muir Russell said:
"This Review must determine if there is evidence of poor scientific practice, as well as investigate allegations around the manipulation and suppression of data.
"As others have pointed out, it would be impossible to find somebody with the qualifications and experience we need who has not formed an opinion on climate change.
"I am completely confident that each member of the Review team has the integrity, the expertise, and the experience to complete our work impartially."
Unfortunately it is not Sir Muir who needs to be confident of the integrity of the review team, it is the public who will be the consumers of his findings. Sir Muir said at the start of his review that he considered it important to carry the confidence of sceptics. It seems clear now that this is not an issue that is occupying his mind any longer.
Reader Comments (29)
One would not need to be a climate expert to find examples of poor scientific practice: the principles of good scientific practice apply across all disciplines.
I guess it would have just been TOO embarrassing to lose two members of the "Team" within a week of its launch.
What a joke. Climate science is no more that using other disciplines to understand the climate. People from those other disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc., but not associated with work on the climate, would have exactly the qualifications needed without having formed at least a strong opinion. Let the whitewash commence.
This is totally unacceptable. There has to be a roar of objections to this before it goes any further and we're presented with the whitewash, told to draw a line and move on.
What has been uncovered is not "errors" or "blunders" but deliberate, prolonged deception. You don't need climate experts to determine whether deception was taking place; statisticians maybe, good detectives, investigative journalists or even just a random selection of reasonably honest and intelligent people, like a jury.
He could redeem himself if he found a recognized sceptic for his vacancy
Steven McIntyre just suggested a lawyer, and why not as it is mainly professional misconduct and legal matters that is going to be looked at. Why on earth would you need somenoe who knew anything in the field of climate research for that?
I suggest somebody sets up one of those number10 petitions saying we have no confidence in the Review, on the grounds of the clear conflict of interest of one of its members and poor judgment by its chairman, and calling for it to be abandoned and replaced by a proper independent inquiry.
Anybody got the time to draft up some suitable words?
just one correction for the review team "its BOULTON not Bolton for F***s sake cant you get my name right I am on your team you know"
Well it seems that the warmists are scraping the bottom of the barrel. It's only a matter of time now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data
Am I wrong to think that Muir Russell doesn't have foresight?
I agree with Scott B. This is not an inquiry into climate science. What it needs is panel menbers who understand how science should be done and reported and who are not climate scientists.
Muir Russell your partisan spots are showing through. To say YOU are confident in your team and will not listen to the sceptical side's objections to Boulton, is pathetic!
If you were really impartial, you would listen to and allay every doubt of the doubters. IF this were done AND it was found, after open and impartial inquiry, that our doubts were unfounded, who would not agree with the findings?
How can this inquiry be said to be impartial when members on your team such as Boulton, say the argument over climate change is over and anyone who disagrees are "deniers"?
To say that "it would be impossible to find somebody with the qualifications and experience we need who has not formed an opinion on climate change" is a lie. The "others" who have said this is none other than the said Boulton.
Personally, I say well done to Sir Muir Russell. He has done us a favour. We suspected that the enquiry would be stacked in favour of the green lobby, and now we know it is.
It would have been simplicity itself to appoint impartial members -- and by impartial I mean with no axe to grind for the Warmist or Sceptical camp.
Instead, Sir Muir Russell has chosen to clearly lay his cards on the table.
This government cannot risk the entire edifice of carbon trading, backslapping green money to come tumbling down. Too much is invested in it. Too many reputations are at risk.
The University of East Anglia is not a first division university. The way in which the climategate episode has been handled simply reinforces its total mediocrity.
Sir Muir needs a name change.
Sir Gullible
Sir Stuck on Stupid
Sir Trust Me
Take your pick.
@Fred
Sir Humphrey will do for me.
I see from the Muir Russel review web site (http://www.cce-review.org/Contact.php) that they have taken on a communications management company, Luther Pendragon. http://www.luther.co.uk/ It would be interesting to know if they were advising MR to stick to his guns, or if he's decided to go it alone. Clients of the PR company include some Parliamentary groups, a wind company, a carbon trading group, and The Lap Dancing Association.
The Review website news section for Feb11th says;
"However, it is not our role to re-appraise the CRU's scientific conclusions. The University of East Anglia has today announced a separate independent review which will undertake this re-appraisal, and the Royal Society been asked to advise on identifying possible assessors."
UEA Press Release for same day says
"The independent reassessment will complement Sir Muir Russell’s Review of the key allegations about the handling of data arising from the publication of a series of e-mails hacked from CRU. Sir Muir’s Review is expected to announce its finding in Spring 2010.
The reassessment of CRU’s key publications will be completed at the earliest date the assessors can manage. The findings will be made public"
Isn't this second exercise more important?
Cumbrian Lad - whitewash artists, MPs, carbon traders and lap dancers...we know what the reputable line of work is in THAT lot...
See this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
Not sure that the loss of data is such " a minor thing" that he says it is, given what is at stake.
Climategate raises further points showing the lack of independence - http://www.climategate.com/independent-climate-change-email-inquiry-is-certainly-not-independent
They point out that: "The Independent Climate Change Email Inquiry gives links to:
The Royal Society
The Met Office
Directgov
BBC Weather
Wikipedia
All of the above sites strongly endorse Anthropogenic Global Warming."
Turns out Geoffrey Boulton may have defined the inquiry's scope too!
Revealed at http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/15/who-wrote-the-issues-paper/ -
I had difficulty, doing the document properties thing at first, but then figured it out (Windows XP + Firefox instructions)
1. Right click on the link, do Save Link As (if using Firefox) rather than just following it. There's a similar option in IE I forget the name of. I made sure I saved the file on my desktop.
2. Right Click on the file icon on desktop
3. Go to the PDF tab. You'll see the name Geoffrey Boulton
McIntyre wondered: who wrote Issues paper for Muir ?
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/15/who-wrote-the-issues-paper/#comments
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/CCER%20ISSUES%20FOR%20EXAMINATION%20FINAL.pdf
Download the file before they change it.
What Muir said at the outset was for show. Clearly the Brown government and a host of kook green lobby groups have already written the results of the investigation even before it starts.
It's the latest chapter in the Cook of Climate Science Charades.
I mean
Book of Climate Science Charades.
I did inquire, did I not, whether Sir Muir was an arse? I think I have my answer.
The Guardian article links to a new NatureNews article which may be of interest.
I'm now convinced that Sir Muir's brain would be the last of him to enter a room.
Sir Muir Russell said: "I am completely confident that each member of the Review team has the integrity, the expertise, and the experience to complete our work impartially."
Would that be the same 'impartiality' as shown by the BBC?
If Sir Muir believes that: "it would be impossible to find somebody with the qualifications and experience we need who has not formed an opinion on climate change", then why insist otherwise? Either he admits to making impossible demands for his own panel, or he gets himself a new one...