from the BBC
Sir Muir, a former civil servant, will look into allegations that have arisen from the security breach.
[As a measure of how out of touch UEA is, they apparently have little idea that the title “former civil servant” does not inspire much confidence from skeptics, since it has been “civil servants” who have been blocking access to the data and procedures all along. Here is Sir Muir’s Wikipedia page and his biography page on the University of Glasgow web site – Anthony]
The review will examine whether there is evidence of manipulation or suppression of data “at odds with acceptable scientific practice”.
The CRU is based at the University of East Anglia (UEA).
The e-mails issue arose two weeks ago when hundreds of messages between scientists at the CRU and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents.
It appears that the material was hacked or leaked; a police investigation has yet to reveal which.
CRU maintains one of the world’s most important datasets on how global temperatures have changed.
Professor Phil Jones, director of the unit, has stepped down pending the review, and has said he stands by his data.
At the time that the theft of the data was revealed, some climate sceptic websites picked up on the word “trick” in one e-mail from 1999 and talk of “hiding the decline”.
Professor Jones said the e-mail was genuine but taken “completely out of context”.
He added: “The first thing to point out is that this refers to one diagram – not a scientific paper.
“The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
UEA has said the review will:
- Examine e-mail exchanges to determine whether there is evidence of suppression or manipulation of data at odds with acceptable scientific practice which “may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes”.
- 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”.
- Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the UEA’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) for the release of data.
- Review and make recommendations about the management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.
Sir Muir commented: “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.
Read the complet article here
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
Al Gore has this morning told Berlingske Media’s great annoyance has canceled his planned major climate talks for Danes 16th december i Tap 1 på den gamle Carlsberg grund under titlen ”Klimakonklusion”. December 1 Tap in the old Carlsberg because, under the title “Climate Conclusion”.
Aflysningen kommer med henvisning til uforudsete ændringer i Al Gores program for klimatopmødet, COP15. Cancellation comes with regard to unforeseen changes in Al Gore’s program for the climate summit, COP 15
““The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.””
Why doesn’t Jones understand that the problem isn’t with the word “trick?”
Even if the word “trick” is substituted with the term “clever technique” then we’re still left with the fact that the ‘clever technique was used to HIDE THE DECLINE.’
Its a pity they didnt pick an ex-judge. Judges are trained to be fair and impartial.
Oh no, not that! A “civil servant” is going to “examine email exchanges” and “make recommendations!” This could get ugly.
You don’t mind if I don’t look?
The UEA should go ahead with this process of self-examination. But it is my hope that legal proceedings are already underway against these global rackateers, and the courts will make some real findings. How is that going to look if there is a great disparity between the two?
Just reviewing the emails is inadequate. How about the computer code and the comments therein by the programmer?
Re: Joseph
I read the ‘greenjobs’ news item to say that he sits on the Advisory Board for Scottish Power – I wouldn’t on that basis rush to conclude that he is biased.
Chopping up
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute/
a bit, but that GISS’s public affairs director is “unfamiliar with the British controversy” is very damning for the GISS:
“Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act…”
Mr. Horner suspects the same sort of data shaving (as with CRU – plm) has happened at GISS, a leading climate change research center. Mr. Hess said he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn’t say whether NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data.
(“Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) laboratory, said officials are working on Mr. Horner’s request, though he couldn’t say why they have taken so long.
“We’re collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests,” Mr. Hess said. “It’s just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that’s responsive.” )
The White House has dismissed the British e-mails as irrelevant.
“Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore,” press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this week. ”
And Hansen keeps shooting his mouth off. Keep it up, Jim.
Don’t be too convinced that this guy is going to allow a complete white wash of this issue. He’s politic enough to know that a complete dismissal of this issue could cause severe public outcry which would hurt his cause more than help it.
And any type of corrective action he recommends could scare enough data fakers to amend their ways in the future. Without faking the data, no warming will be observed.
Don’t see anything in his bio or in Wiki that says much about him other than being a public employee with excesses at a gov’t trough. But wait, is he not to investigate the same sort of excesses at CRU? At least he has experience in the arena.
Prof.Piers Corbyn asks “SIGN the Downing St Petition!* http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/
‘We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.’
The link is easy to use It Emails you back for ‘signature’ confirmation. Please sign & forward to someone else to sign.
Then ask your MP to sign too and Oppose any Copenhagen Deal (*only British subjects; other countries have other petitions).”
“Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore,” press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this week. ”
Yes, Gibbs, they came to that conclusion after looking at massaged data.
“CRU maintains one of the world’s most important datasets on how global temperatures have changed.”
CRU formerly maintained what was one of the world’s most important datasets on how global temperatures have changed.
Climate-gate 28,600,000 hits on google now though no sign an any auto prompt
He only has a B.Sc. in Natural Philosophy in the U.K., which I gather translates into a B.S. in Physics in the U.S.A. The bio doesn’t list any scientific publications or research, and historically he comes across as being primarily a bureaucrat. Doesn’t sound like the right kind of qualifications to be investigating problems dealing with advanced statistics, computer programming, dendrochronology, and meteorology/climatology — not to mention the legal issues involving FOIA obstruction and fraud. Where is Inspector Clouseau when we need him?
According to this “Chair for climate e-mail review ” BBC piece on Russell we may have the entire winter to collect more “global warming” data. At the rate at which the Arctic ice is melting (alarmingly according to yesterday’s House Administration’s testimony), etc. the globe may continue to be the best advocate against AGW, regardless of Russell’s decision. At the rate the GISS is responding to Chris Horner these data release controversies will be continuing through the SC 23-24 minimum.
I got a kick out of this:
“This is probably necessary to allow a thorough investigation, but it does mean that those who are using ‘climategate’ as a propaganda tool for their own political ends might be able to enjoy many more weeks of mischief-making.
“The big question is whether so-called ‘sceptics’ will complain because the investigation will not be headed by one of their own, and whether they will suspend their campaigns of disinformation about this affair until the investigation is completed.”
UEA has asked for the review to be completed by the Spring of 2010 and this will be made public along with the university’s response.
Ha, the controversies may continue through SC 24!
Anthony, if only you has a Sir-ship and could have been considered for this review…
John Good (09:47:22) : “Climate-gate 28,600,000 hits on google now though no sign (of) any auto prompt”
Now count hits for “climategate, treason”
There is no question that Muir Russell is already compromised due to him being a member of the nine person Advisory Board connected to Scottish Power.
http://www.scottishpower.com/PressReleases_1612.htm
On the “greenjobs” website, it quotes:
“In closing the meeting, First Minister Alex Salmond commented, “Scotland has a vast future as a green energy powerhouse for Europe. We have the natural resources to succeed, the skills base to drive research and development, and a government with the will to ensure that renewables generation is allowed to thrive.
“ScottishPower are well placed to take a central position in Scotland’s greener future. The significant investment in renewables, outlined in their latest strategic plan, sets ScottishPower on the path to enjoying the success our global potential has to offer.”
No question of bias. The investigation will be a greenwash.
OK, own up, who here has said that Prof Jones and his Crew had been guilty of “exaggeration”?
Unless I have been following all the wrong blogs, exaggeration ain’t in it. Unless, of course, its one of those handy euphemisms like “Economical with the truth”, “Quantitative easing” and from the climate world, “Value added data”.
If so and it means something a great deal worse but which can’t be mentioned before the watershed or on public internet, then I’d agree.
Still, you have to hand it to Wiki (whose credibility ain’t so hot either these days) who said:
“In Dec 2009 he was tapped to head an independent investigation into allegations that the causes of climate change were exaggerated by The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based out of the University of East Anglia (UEA).”
Oh and how is it that the “causes” are exaggerated? Surely it was the temperature data? and unless I’m wrong the temperature is a symptom, not a cause or would be if the data weren’t “value added”.
He said:
‘My first task is to scope the project, gather the information I need and source the additional expertise that will be required in order to investigate fully the allegations that have been made. Once this has happened I will be in a position to confirm timescales for publishing the review’.
It will be interesting to see
-How the project is scoped
-How the information is gathered
-What additional expertise is required
-What timescales are confirmed for publishing the review
(Also what the review will cover)
“As a measure of how out of touch UEA is, they apparently have little idea that the title ‘former civil servant’ does not inspire much confidence from skeptics, since it has been “civil servants” who have been blocking access to the data and procedures all along.”
Speaking in general yes, that’s true. Anyone who has ever watched “Yes [Prime] Minister!” has seen Sir Humphrey cook the statitistics to say whatever he wants them tosay and block access to the public.
I thought they would pick John Frobisher, but I guess he is no longer available.
Isn’t there still 100 megs of data to come??
RE :Neal Asher (09:09:54) :
Ah a scottish politician. All is in safe hands … wait a minute!
—
Perhaps he know just the right peat bog for the papers
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103