From Channel 4 news in the UK:
‘Climate-gate’ review member resigns
By Tom Clarke
Within hours of the launch of an independent panel to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperature rises, one member has been forced to resign after sceptics questioned his impartiality.
// In an interview last year with Chinese State Radio, enquiry panel member Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature said: “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”
He went on: “In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”
Dr Campbell, was invited to sit on the enquiry panel because of his expertise in the peer review process as editor of one of the world’s leading science journals.
The journal has published some of the leading papers on climate change research, including those supporting the now famous “hockey stick” graph, the subject of intense criticism by climate sceptics.
Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.
“As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need to for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails.
“There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team.”
The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog, run by climate sceptic Andrew Montford, will come as an embarrassment to the enquiry’s chair Sir Muir Russell.
At a press conference this morning to launch the panel, the experienced civil servant and former vice-chancellor of Glasgow University, emphasised his hand-picked panel’s impartiality.
A press release about the panel read: “They were selected on the basis that they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues of the review.”
Speaking this evening, Muir Russell said “I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision.”
Read the complete story at Channel 4 News
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hah, he blames media for his mistake. I just love it.
============================
And why on earth did Muir Russell think he was unbiased? Will he be replaced with William Connolley?
===========================
“I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision.”
Translation:
“Wow, being an editor at such a compromised periodical, I really thought this guy knew how to play ball, oh well, the list of true believers is long.”
Honestly,
Did we really expect an “independant review”?
Naturegate?
Well, that is an improvement.
So, who is going to be appointed now?
Har har!!
Amazing. The enquiry is falling apart faster than the science it purports to be investigating. Respect due to campbell for declaring his impartiality though.
Dang, caught stacking the deck already.
I should have said: respect for declaring his partiality.
No TGSG, I don’t think anyone really expected an honestly independent review. This is a $7 billion / year industry. They will not go quiety into the night of their humiliation.
I think this extremely serious. They are basically saying/admitting that the Journal Nature is biased so we have to remove him. I reckon this will be bigger than climategate overall. Basically AL:L credibility is now gone. Nature will have to either kick him out as well or be seen as a trash publication?
This must be the most bizarre scandal in science, ever.
This is d’oh-gate
If only he could be forced to resign from Nature.
So, Nature is to assess the process and the Royal Society is to assess the output. It would be just as appropriate for a Mafia boss to ask his mother for a character reference and his brother to assess his guilt. Fortunately the MSM are just beginning to smell blood and I can see a lot of would be panel members being challenged. This could be really entertaining. As each one is named it will be open season. I can’t think of anyone in the warming camp (other than the luke warmers like the Pielkes) who have not been prone to bias and wild exageration. This could be fun.
OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant
If this is true and holds water, it’s pure dynamite:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
Claim is that earth’s greenhouse effect is already at it’s maximun and constant level, as long we have water left to vaporize.
If CO2 or any other greenouse gas increases in the atmosphere it is compensated by less humidity in the atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect on earth is claimed to be an constrant, only the division between different greenhouse gases and water wapor changes. If all CO2 would disappear from atmosphere, it would be compensated by 0,08 prcm (3%) increase of water vapor. If Co2 would double, our climate would compsate this by 3% decrease of vater vapor in the athmosphere.
The whole increase of CO2 from 1940 to 2008 has been compensated by less than 1% decrease of water vapor in the athmosphere.
The mathematical solution is simple as E=mc2 and theoretical result correlates with measurements within 0,1%.
Has any of you heard about this before? If this would be true, it would make the IPCC theorry and AGW obsolete.
All the anomalies in the climate history would be related to other effects than greenhouse effect.
Actuals documents are embedded to to web page and can be downloaded from scribd.com.
Blind deology-0: Harsh Reality-1
…. Ideology
Don’t confuse me with facts. I’ve made my mind up.
I wish everyone would stop pretending that “Nature” had any credibility at all.
Over the years every paper by any “quack”, who they could “put up” as a “legitimate scientist” (usually because of a quirk in university tenure laws, which don’t allow you to fire someone just because they’ve become “flakey”, who wrote some alleged paper, which exaggerated, or made some bogus case against nuclear power…was published without the slightest hesitation.
Being anti-nuclear power is, well, for the LEFT, completely acceptable.
In 1999, after completing a series of exhaustive testing of an IEC (Inertial Electrostatic Confinement) fusion device, Dr. George Miley submitted (with his Phd Graduate student, Brian Dysjerack, a paper to Nature…about the results of their work. The SINGLE PEER REVIEWER rejected the paper, on the basis that, “The IEC or Farnsworth Fusor, CANNOT WORK.” He sent Dr. Miley a 1972 paper by some fellows at Oak Ridge, that showed that the IEC device “cannot, theoretically” cause any fusion reactions to occur.
Suffice it to say, this was a shock to Dr. Miley (and now Dr. Dysjerack) who had spent a couple years measuring the 10 Billion D fusion neutrons (5 MeV) per second coming from the device when powered up.
Now let’s talk about BIG MONEY! I.e., the Tokomak “Tribe”. They will not broach ANY competition. Just look up IEC and note that the Tokomaks DO have a lot of competition. But for NATURE to be so HAUGHTY, so, “We walk on water, and the rest of you fools are such rubbish…” HA! Laughable. Nature is really a dinosaur waiting to die.
John W. (13:39:48) :
If only he could be forced to resign from Nature.
For a moment that’s what I thought the headline of this article said. Oh Well better luck next time.
PS: Good paper by Miley here –
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ0-40NMSSG-1R&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F15%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1203797595&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2290f1cce8be6e152369282d74f12926
“I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.”
Like all good scientists he gets his evidence from the media. Bet it was the Grauniad. Wait; it couldn’t have been the Graundia. They were the last rag to report on Climategate.
I found this statement from David Eyton, another member of the inquiry:
David Eyton, BP group vice president, Research & Technology, said: “The challenge of climate change requires policy development at all levels: global, national and local. Our work with Princeton is an example of BP’s commitment to collaborative research, and has already provided a vital contribution to the pace of policy development. We trust that governments will be successful in reaching a consensus for significant action, and we are working to inform their actions based on our experience of low-carbon technologies and businesses.”
He is Vice President of a division of a multi billion dollar company investing heavily in clean technology, carbon capture, etc, technologies entirely dependent on government subsidies to be viable.
Now – would he put his company’s investments at risk by in any way questioning the science on which such subsidies are based?
Think not.