When Oxburgh produced a 5 page report on the UEA/CRU Climategate issue, we immediately say it as “spartan”, while some called it “efficient”. We wondered how such a small report could be done with a team of people and 2-3 weeks of time. The secret it turns out, is to focus on making sure that coffee, lunch, and “working dinners” are prominently part of the whirlwind schedule. Oh, and to be sure not to interview anyone one-on-one. Josh of Cartoons by Josh writes:
Steve’s post yesterday had me chortling away this morning. I too had got the impression that the whole Oxburgh team were in Norwich for around 2-3 weeks. To see the actual schedule was just too funny.
Yeah, I’ll say. See Josh’s new cartoon below.
Steve McIntyre writes:
Through FOI requests, we have obtained the actual schedule of the Oxburgh panel online here.
Here is the actual schedule for the panel hearings in Norwich on April 7-8.
9:30 a.m. – 9.45 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby) Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss and Jacqui Churchill, VCO Coffee and Tour round CRU
9.45 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library 30 minute presentation by Phil Jones followed by questions
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members – room number 00.2 CRU
1:30-3:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
3.30-4.30 pm If needed: follow-up meeting with Phil Jones and Peter Liss
4.30-5.30 pm Panel private meeting
5.30 pm Peter Liss to chaperone Panel to Zicer Layby for taxis to hotel
7.00 p.m. Working Dinner at Caistor Hall
Thursday 8 April
8.45am- 9.00 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby). Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss Coffee in CRU
9.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members – Sainsbury Centre, Garden Restaurant – Jacqui to collect and escort
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m. Final Meeting
3.00 p.m. – 3.30 p.m. Coffee + Depart in taxis from Zicer Layby
Travel arrangements (obtained through FOI) show that this schedule was adhered to. Oxburgh arrived in Norwich at 6:30 pm on the evening of April 6 and had a train reservation back to Cambridge at 3.40 pm on April 8.
More here.
And of course, Oxburgh never interviewed anyone who was critical of CRU.
can’t they just adjust the data until it says “weeks”?
seems to have worked in the past.
Uhmm…hide the recline.
Were these two days the only meetings?
Three panelists also visited on March 30.
Great cartoon, Josh!
What kind of hard-nosed interview allows a 30-minute sales pitch/mea culpa/hint-as-to-what-questions-to-ask/presentation before the questioning begins?
I’m betting the only thing hard in those two days were the crumpets, if the staff was careless in their grocery shopping, and the toilet seat tops in the loo. (Wait… loo breaks weren’t on the schedule anywhere. Tough job, eh?)
The problem is that Oxburgh’s circle of human acquaintances, as opposed to his fellow apparatchiks, is likely to be too small to give him concern to uphold the highest possible standards.
Unlike Monckton, Oxburgh is the kind of Englishman that is now in the ascendent.
I’m surprised anyone could find any whitewash in the shops after he was finished. The investigation was a joke, the very thin report was a joke.
As for conflict of interest it is interesting to know that the good Lord Oxburgh is the Honorary President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falk Renewables.
http://www.ccsassociation.org.uk/about_ccsa/staff.html
http://www.falckrenewables.com/
Ron Oxburgh:
“ I’m really very worried for the planet”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,1240021,00.html
So the whitewash was no surprise.
Keep up the witch hunt!
REPLY: Not a witch hunt at all, but a humorous and satirical look at how poorly conducted this investigation was. What’s the point of doing a half assed job if your presentation to the public seems to point to doing a professional job? Why would it take an FOIA request to get something as simple as a visit schedule? – Anthony
Surprisingly no tea at all!, it seems they are not gentlemen.
From D1 Oils website”:-
“Lord Oxburgh Appointed Non-Executive Director and to become Chairman in 2007
D1 Oils plc (D1), the UK-based global producer of biodiesel, is pleased to announce the appointment of Lord Oxburgh as a Non-Executive Director of the Company with the intention that he becomes Chairman in early 2007. When Lord Oxburgh succeeds to the Chairmanship, the present Chairman, Karl E. Watkin, will remain as a Non-Executive Director of the Company.
Lord Oxburgh is a long-standing public advocate of the need to address climate change issues. He served as the Non-Executive Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading plc from 2004 to 2005, during which time he took a close interest in the company’s environmental technologies. Since then, Lord Oxburgh has been an adviser to Climate Change Capital, a specialist investment banking group focused on companies and financial institutions affected by the policy and capital market responses to climate change.”
Always good to have someone who is totally impartial running an inquiry!!!
Thursday 8 April
8.45am- 9.00 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby). Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss Coffee in CRU
9.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library
——————————————
Missing 15 min (9.00 a.m. – 9.15 a.m.) looks suspicious 😉
REPLY: Seems about right though. There’s always some “slop” in whitewash. – Anthony
Breakfast.
Dip, dip.
White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
Tea.
Dip, dip.
White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
Lunch.
Dip, dip.
White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
Afternoon Tea.
Dip, dip.
White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
Photo-op.
Dip, dip.
White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
Dinner.
Dip, dip.
White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
Press report.
Dip, dip.
White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
There. That should do it.
What a pretty fence we have painted.
That’ll keep out those nosy neighbors.
Anyone for vacation?
Enneagram says:
September 9, 2010 at 9:27 am
Surprisingly no tea at all!, it seems they are not gentlemen.
That does not help at all Please don’t bring the tea party in this true science will do it not that!!!
lorne a P/C Canadian
COFFEE?!? You can actually get coffee in England? Heck, I’m booking a flight.
…. and I’ll bet they put non-fat milk in it during their nice little chit-chat. Which, after analysis and adjustments, was labeled 4% or “whole” milk – – well, maybe even “cream”… Say what? … Hey! Maybe down the road in time someone on the inside will upload a bunch of emails onto a public server, relating to these meetings, wherein we’ll find the statement, “We not only creamed our coffee, we also “creamed” the report!” And when accused of “white washing” the report, Oxburgh will protest, “Oh no, my Good Fellow. That was just a reference to someone spilling milk on one copy of the report before being handed out to the press. How could you possibly think otherwise?”
I’d be ROTFL if it wasn’t so pathetic.
They were thinking about minimizing their carbon footprint?
Ecotretas
In the Parliamentary Hearing analysis SM assumes that the committee was tricked into believing that the committee worked long and diligently.
Why does one have to presume that the committee was tricked? Is it not simpler to assume that all were working through what was perceived to be a difficult situation? It would certainly explain the lack of seemingly obvious follow-up questions. I did go to the web site and listen to the hearing.
British Coffee? hmmm
It is a great schedule, for the travel channel.
The AGW world is in full circle-the-wagons mode. A year ago I thought their side had some legitimate points to make but no more. I can’t get a straight answer or an open debate out of the AGW sites — just condescension, ridicule and of course censoring.
Over at http://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/#comment-3748 I managed to get one comment through taking a few of Paul Ehrlich’s ripest scare talk points to task — including his claim that the ocean’s would die of DDT poisoning by 1979.
To my surprise someone actually defended that claim saying that because DDT was banned (mostly) the oceans were saved.
When I pointed out how miniscule those years of unbanned DDT would have been in the vastness of the ocean, and asked whether anyone actually would argue that that amount of DDT would have killed the ocean, the moderator censored the posts as “inflammatory” or demanded that I cite peer-reviewed work or dismissed the amounts I calculated (.2 micromicrograms/liter) with “small concentrations of pollutants are inconsequential” which was exactly the point I was making.
I know everyone here has war stories like this. I’m now convinced the AGW side can’t make their case in open debate and they know it.
This is why time spent at the UEA is held in such high esteem worldwide. A 2 year course at the UEA would take at least 15 years elsewhere. No wonder the British establishment (and giddy but informed climatologists worldwide) are circling the wagons to defend the honor of their best and brightest.
It must have been quite an effort to stretch out that report to a full five pages.
I think the time and expense devoted to formulating that whitewash was excessive! A few phone calls could have produced the same results. Ovbiously, the participants wanted to take a junket, hobnob about nothing, and call it good. All on taxpayer funds, no doubt.
Professor Michael E. Mann, has determined, using a novel PCA based algorithm that Oxburgh and team spent 60 days in Norwich. The new algorithm is fed with ‘time proxy’ data, (credit card receipts, coffee mugs, fluff obtained from coat pockets, train tickets, etc.) and deduces those proxies which most absolutely agree with the known truth (i.e. whatever Oxburgh says).
Its not so bad, I thought they all met and discussed in Cancun, Bali and Bora Bora. Now that would have taken a few weeks.
“And of course, Oxburgh never interviewed anyone who was critical of CRU.”
Their remit was to produce the exoneration in no longer that 30 days. That left no time to create an appearance of objectivity. I suspect there were also budget considerations. Creating an appearance of objectivity is an addition-charge service on Oxburgh’s whitewashing price list.
I don’t see a problem with the schedule.