Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« The ICO rules | Main | The Russell review »
Wednesday
Jul072010

Good tricks...

A few links of interest:

Roger Pielke Jnr notes that the Russell panel has misrepresented what the IPCC is. He makes the point that it is meant to be a representation of all of the scientific literature. Russell suggests, incorrectly, that the authors can pick and choose which papers to include. This then helps them exonerate Jones on the charge of fabrication.

McKitrick's response is here.

But they seemed to take the view that any decision would be reasonable since the IPCC had the job of making a decision. The ICCER ignored the problem of conflict of interest, and took at face value claims by Professor Jones (page 73, paragraph 15) that were either untrue (i.e. our results are compatible with satellite data, contrary to his assertion) or were unsubstantiated (i.e. his claim that our results are artifacts of ocean circulation patterns, which is the whole point under controversy). Consequently their finding on this point is baseless.

Fred Pearce notes that the Russell panel failed to ask Jones if he deleted any emails.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Allow me to put it another way, instead of scientists, these people were hedge managers, and they were found by an inquiry, run by fund managers and bankers, of not being involved in insider trading, but being part of a fan club. Moreover, though the figures they published for investors were ...

Reader Comments (22)

I must say, Muir Russell could certainly give Lord Oxburgh a few pointers on how to do a proper white-wash: 160 pages, footnotes, citations, their very own temperature reconstruction which looks just like CRUTEM.... these guys are GOOD!

Jul 7, 2010 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert E. Phelan

Thank you, your grace, and happy return to your holiday.

Jul 7, 2010 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Maybe I should murder someone and have Russell be the judge at the trial. First, get him to exclude all the ballistic, DNA, and fingerprint evidence by not even looking at it as he did in the case to the CRU software, which was not examined. And then get him to let me pick what witness testimony is looked at, as he let Jones pick the "appropriate" emails.

No, this isn't a whitewash, it is a total travesty of justice.

Jul 7, 2010 at 7:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Fred Pearce's piece is a good read, but the commenters are practically foaming at the mouth. I really think that the 'establishment' have lost it now. Three enquiries by Lord Persil and Mates of the Naughty Ones have been so transparently fixed that they've lost all credibility. The Establishment probably thinks it's been clever, but it's more and more like the Emperor's new clothes every day.

Jul 7, 2010 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

Is anybody formally to look into the Russell report, or be able to ask questions of his authors? Or they do the report and just go home without being ever asked about any apparent problem in the said report? I presume those that appointed and commissioned this panel report should have a say at ascertaining that the panel have performed their job satisfactorily.

Jul 7, 2010 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterHector M.

Hector

I'm going to be writing a report on the three inquiries for GWPF, but in terms of an official response I don't know that there will be anything. However, given Phil Willis's comments to Roger Harrabin it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Parliament will step in again.

Jul 7, 2010 at 8:02 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I've missed this, Is their a link to Willis - Roger Harrabin?

Jul 7, 2010 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Harrabin audio here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8795000/8795643.stm

Jul 7, 2010 at 9:07 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I heard Lord Willis (as he is now) this morning, I wonder if he has met Lord Oxburgh in the House of Lords yet?

Might be pertinent with Willis now advising the new Science & Technology Select Committee.

Whilst he was strong this morning, at the time he was quite happy with the outcome his little "get them in to show the world how good they are" inquiry. He now appears to be running the "our inquiry was curtailed in the run up to the election" excuse.

Funny old world, we expected Oxburgh to do more, so we did not!

Jul 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

My lord Bish:

Congratulations on being invited to write a report on the three inquiries for GWPF. I hope you get a proper reward. Do you have a timescale in mind?

Jul 7, 2010 at 10:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Ah, I see you're due to report by the end of August. You're going to be busy after your break.

[BH adds: Most of it is done alreadt. Just got to do the Russell review.]

Jul 7, 2010 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Thats great news that the Bishop will sit as Inquisitor on how objective, pertinent and comprehensive the CRU inquiries really were.

If the BBC's Harrabin on 29 May can smell the stench, it's there all right:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178454.stm

Jul 8, 2010 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Congratulations on the invitation to write the GWPF report. After reading your Hockey Stick Illusion, I can't imagine a better choice or author to lay out the events, and the meaning of the events.

Jul 8, 2010 at 12:44 AM | Unregistered Commenterjim

Jim is right

Jul 8, 2010 at 2:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Another low-powered enquiry. The concept of 'power' in statistics relates to the probability that an effect, it if is there, will be detected by a given investigation (typically a designed experiment of some kind) - the lower the power, the less likely that anything of interest will be found. A sneaky way to provide support for a null hypothesis, is to avoid looking very hard for contradiction, and then report the findings.

This chap, Thomas Fuller, has some pithy remarks on the Russell report:

'As with other inquiries into the affair, the Russell review states that they did not examine the science and that the science is correct.'
...
'In the Russell report, Russell writes that the Oxburgh inquiry looked at the science. Lord Oxburgh has specifically stated that his inquiry did not look at the science. Nor did the Parliamentary sub-committee's one day hearing. Nor did either of the Penn State investigations.'
...
'I do not believe this was a whitewash. However, I do believe that the overarching framework of dealing with this issue using a series of segmented investigations of limited scope guaranteed that the vital issues would fall through the cracks. This is accepted behaviour in the UK, and I doubt if it was unintentional.'

Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m7d7-Global-warming-An-inquiry-that-doesnt-look-at-the-science-cannot-understand-Climategate?cid=exrss-Environmental-Policy-Examiner

Jul 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

I see that Moonbat is vacillating again and has decided that Phil Jones is in the clear now!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jul/07/russell-inquiry-i-was-wrong

I rather liked the following comment to that thread, from 'positively neutral'. It seems a fair point...

Allow me to put it another way, instead of scientists, these people were hedge managers, and they were found by an inquiry, run by fund managers and bankers, of not being involved in insider trading, but being part of a fan club. Moreover, though the figures they published for investors were misleading, the investors could have obtained the raw data and worked out that they were being sold a lemon on their own.

Would you be so forgiving?

Jul 8, 2010 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Am I permitted to say the following I wonder?

In Science the rule of thumb will forever be as follows:

You lie, you cheat, you fiddle and corrupt the facts, you get promoted!

Jul 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

March 1st 2010

HoC Examination of Witnesses

Between Q129 and Q130 Professor Acton tells the Science & Tech. committee

Professor Acton: Ah. Muir Russell's independent review is not looking at the science it is looking at allegations about malpractice. As for the science itself, I have not actually seen any evidence of any flaw in the science but I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong.


Shouldn’t there have been a further supplementary memorandum submitted by the UEA to the Science and Technology Committee to amend Acton’s statement?

Jul 8, 2010 at 7:55 PM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

Bishop Hill

Your report on the three inquiries for The Global Warming Policy
Foundation


1. Don't forget the devastating part that Phil Willis seemingly
played in the initiation of the three inquiries -- plus the
Pachauri inquiry (and the Met Office project of reanalysing the
global temperature data for the past 160 years)!

2. Before Phil Willis wrote to Prof Edward Acton on 1 December
2009:

* On 24 November 2009 Prof Trevor Davies of the UEA had
announced the terms of the UEA inquiry as just:
'We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review,
which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of
how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests,
and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer
advises should be addressed.'

* And on 29 November 2009 Dr Ravendra Pachauri had, according to
the Guardian, said that an independent inquiry into the emails
would achieve little, but there should be a criminal
investigation into how the emails came to light.

3. On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis wrote to Prof Edward Acton:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-pn04-091207/

'The work of the Climatic Research Unit

There has been considerable press coverage of the e-mails and
documents which have been obtained relating to the work of the
Climatic Research Unit. The coverage alleged that data may have
been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on
global warming.

The Science and Technology Committee takes a close interest in
academic integrity, systems to ensure the quality of evidence
from research and evidence-based policy making, and the
Committee would appreciate a comprehensive note setting out:

(a) your account of what has taken place;

(b) the steps that have been taken to investigate the
allegations and to test the integrity of the data held and used
by the CRU;

(c) how the CRU can justify its commitment to academic
transparency; and

(d) how you propose to restore confidence in the CRU and its
handling of data.

The Committee also asks for an assurance that none of the data
referred to in the e-mails that have been publicised has been
destroyed.

The note may be published and the Committee may in due course
request that the University appear to give oral evidence.

Phil Willis
Chairman'

4. After Phil Willis wrote to Prof Edward Acton:

* On 3 December 2009 the UEA announced the expanded terms of Sir
Muir Russell's investigation. Sir Muir Russell would now also:
'1. Examine the hacked 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.'

(And on 11 February 2010 the UEA announced the complementary
independent external 'reassessment of CRU’s key publications'
that became the Oxburgh inquiry)

* On 4 December 2009 Dr Rajendra Pachauri told the BBC that the
IPCC would investigate claims that CRU scientists manipulated
data

(And on 21 February 2010 Dr Pachauri finally told an interviewer
the findings of the investigation: 'We did a pretty thorough
internal check and we have not found any evidence of [tampering
or modification to the data used to make the temperature hocky
stick]. ... What we have done is fairly detailed enquiry and
found nothing was really done.')

* And on 5 December the Met Office said that it projected a
complete reanalysis of the CRU's temperature data for the past
160 years, to take three years

(Later on 5 December, seemingly under Government pressure [the
Copenhagen Conference on 7 December 2009 was just two days
away], the Met Office denied the project.

But on 22 February 2010 at an international meeting of climate
scientists the Met Office formally proposed to the meeting: 'We
feel that it is timely to propose an international effort to
reanalyze surface temperature data in collaboration with the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which has the
responsibility for global observing and monitoring systems for
weather and climate.')

5. The UEA inquiries by their terms of reference may have
thwarted Phil Willis in his desire to see an inquiry into the
'quality of evidence' from the CRU's research.

But without him to stir things up, how much more bereft of
corrective action in response to the CRU revelations we would
have been.


Stephen Prower

Stevenage

Thursday 8 July 2010

Jul 8, 2010 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Prower

Stephen, was Willis' letter published at the time? I agree with you that this must have contributed to the Terms of Reference.

Stringer was also very curt with Acton when Acton vented about who was responsible for the emails - Stringer reminding him about the former Speaker's preoccupation with who leaked the expenses as opposed to the substance of the expenses.

Jul 8, 2010 at 10:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve McIntyre

Steve

Willis letter


Pro tem, I think originally it was just recorded in Select
Committee paperwork that Phil Willis had written on 1 December
2009.

I know I only picked up the actual letter from Committee archive
on the web some time later.

Someone referred to it, recited from it, or digested it -- So I
went looking for the beast -- And there it was!

I shall research further into my back downloads, and write if I
can provide harder or more full information.

Stephen Prower

Stevenage

Thursday 8 July 2010

Jul 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Prower

Steve

Willis letter


1. The Phil Willis letter, as you will have worked out, is in
the Select Committee's list of Press releases:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-sessional-pn-list-2009-10-/

under the description:

'7 December 2009
The work of the Climate Research Unit, UEA
Letter sent to Vice-Chancellor'.

It would have been easy to overlook the letter at the time.

And if it was immediately uploaded to the Select Committee's
website on 7 December 2009, I did so.

2. Prof Edward Acton replied to the letter on 10 December 2009:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/091210-uea-vice-chancellor-letter.pdf

I think I picked up the reply before I picked up Phil Willis'
letter itself, although I can't now remember where. From then on
I was on the lookout for the letter itself.

3. Note Bishop Hill certainly was himself also onto Prof Edward
Acton's reply:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38707.htm

Maybe he was likewise also onto the Phil Willis letter -- and
possibly is able, more helpfully, actually to give a date for
the first time he saw the letter.

4. I am sorry that I can't be more helpful.

5. Some other results of my research do though represent a
possible bonus:

a. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/481/481.pdf

This is the Select Committee's Legacy report dated 24 March
2010. See Paragraphs 62-65 of the report for some really strong
retrospective comments on the aims of the Committee's CRU
inquiry. Eg the Committee recites its interest not just in the
integrity of the CRU's dataset, but also much more widely in
'the integrity of the other two international temperature data
sets commonly used by climate science scientists'.

b. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-pn32-100331/

Here's a very strong statement of what the Select Committee
expected the Oxburgh inquiry to do: '... it will
be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the
University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU
has been soundly built.'

5. And here's a third incidental possible bonus result for
Bishop Hill:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/CRUphiljones

As announced in this UEA Press release, coincidentally Phil
Jones stood aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit on
1 December 2009, the same day as the date of the Phil Willis
letter. In the same Press release Prof Edward Acton also said:
'We will announce details of the Independent Review, including
its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days.'

The most likely interpretation of these 'concessions' is that
the Select Committee actually started taking an interest in the
affair before 1 December 2009.

If so there might have been a lot going on behind the scenes
between the Select Committee and the UEA before then. Phil
Willis did not immediately decide to lay the law down to Prof
Acton.

The UEA eventually decided to 'submit', and respond to Select
Committee concerns.

But unfortunately for the UEA, they were just too late: By then
the letter was already on its way.

So the UEA failed to divert and avoid the potentially torrid
experience of a public interrogation by the members of a Select
Committee of the House of Commons.


Stephen Prower

Stevenage

Thursday 8 July 2010

Jul 9, 2010 at 1:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Prower

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>