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
I’m running a survey on whether skeptics think he’s the right man for the job or not. Take a look at his Wiki page if you like, then take the survey here.
One of the top three news stories on Excite ! News under “World News” was this AP
story that is a nice overview of the way things are:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20091203/D9CC0CT01.html
It’s the first time any part of the story has made it Excite.
Note House Select Committee Republicans reading e-mails into the record. This
activity was not reported in US MSM Wednesday afternoon or evening.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8393449.stm
“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.”
That is two questions, but neither qualifies as big. It does give insight into the mindset though.
Good.
The Scots as a race are not swayed by sassenach politicians AGENDA’s, nor are they easily taken in by bullsh1t.
The Uni of Glasgow is not a hotbed of climate nonsense, and has a rep for the practical application of solid science.
I’ll reserve judgement, but I have hope this won’t be a whitewash.
I particularly liked two bits on ‘PM’ tonight. Firstly Roger Harriben
describing Climategate as a huge controversy. Which is strange when the BBC
has almost forgotten to mention it until today.
And secondly a nice piece
about nomads in Mali & Mauritania complaining about having to flog (eat?)
their camels and move salt from the salt mines in trucks because the camels
couldn’t cope with the ‘drought’.
Drought in the middle of the Sahara Desert?
Hoodathunkit?
Worse than we thought.
In the terms of the review, there is no mention about examining the code only the emails.
Isnt that a huge gap in the terms of reference?
Rhys Jaggar (09:14:17) :
One hopes that Sir Muir does not prejudge his enquiry by reading the editorial in this week’s issue of Nature magazine.
Rhys, I expect that the reputation of Nature, Science and climate journals is now suspect. Once the cabal and its stranglehold on “reputable” publishing is brought into the open – they will lose their luster. Not a bad thing as the wider the base of publishing the better for dynamic science. It is doubtful that either Science or Nature will fully recover from Climategate.
I agree with Vincent.
I have served on many Commissions of Enquiry and learned in the very first one that politicians love them because it takes them out of the spotlight, makes them appear wise and independent, but they retain control through the terms of reference. In my first experience we couldn’t even get the data we needed let alone reach any conclusions. I told the chairman that I would go public telling them the Minister had tied our hands. Apparently they decided that was a bigger political problem than allowing a full examination. Incidentally, in that case there had been three prior Commission beginning in the 1870s. The very first one identified the problems and provided appropriate solutions but by the time the report was submitted the problems had faded past the incumbency of the Minster, but re-emerged three more times as nature went through its normal cycles.
In the CRU case the first coverup will be of the University’s involvement, they have already been conned by Jones, here is a portion of an email from him to Santer;
“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI
person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.”
“external review”
LOL!! Is *that* how they plan to ‘handle’ this!? [ :
Everyone knows these university “external reviews” are a collegial JOKE!
Too funny.
For anyone who doesn’t know, here is how external reviews work:
A top rep of the folks under review meets with the externals to informally (i.e. don’t look for it in the ‘official’ protocols) discuss how it will go. Usually 3 untroublesome (i.e. manageable) criticisms will be “cordially” agreed upon. They usually involve changes the department was already planning.
Then the input of all department members, including underlings of various descriptions, is welcomed (but it won’t necessarily make the report – I ASSURE you the most d*mning notes fall straight into the dustbin of the collegial hush-hush lullaby – that’s what collegiality at universities is all about! – the cloak of the ivory tower that outsiders are assumed too dumb too ever see through (insert coy smiles of smug ivory tower superiority here…))
Not gonna work this time admina-freaks.
CYA time… I advise letting the profs take the hard fall this time. No need for your families to become threatened by the inexcusably poor judgement exercised regarding the VERY LARGE role of natural variations in the Earth system. Scientists from other disciplines who study related time series are laughing at untenable abstract unidisciplinary notions which have emerged at UEA under the watch of one of your directors.
As a measure of how out of touch the BBC is, when was the last time anyone here referred to the “world wide web?”
Bishop Hill (12:12:40) : I’m running a survey on whether skeptics think he’s the right man for the job or not. Take a look at his Wiki page if you like, then take the survey here.
Your Ecclesiastical Eminence – we have very little to judge Sir Muir Russell on.
He is a scott, Glasgow Uni, tough man (lecturers’ strike, attempts to close the University’s Crichton Campus in Dumfries) – that goes in his favour. Who knighted him? Thatcher or Blair? Looks like he might just be a fair man. Fingers crossed.
Strange to quoting myself but was this a late,late,late April fool’s?
Stephen Shorland (12:03:48) :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/28/hadley-cru-discovers-the-mole/ ???
“The Scots as a race are not swayed by sassenach politicians AGENDA’s, nor are they easily taken in by bullsh1t.”
Not, sadly, true. The Scots led New Labour’s “greener-than-thou” agenda and the current, even more parochial “nationalist” administration is even worse.
“The Uni of Glasgow is not a hotbed of climate nonsense, and has a rep for the practical application of solid science.”
Scottish academia is a hotbed of climate change nonsense. Glasgow University is not immune in that regard.
The country (more accurately, the region) is, for all practical purposes, run by (Spanish-owned) ScottishPower and the (for now) locally-owned Scottish and Southern Energy PLC. Both are managed by subsidy junkies who peddle the climate change agenda at every opportunity.
“I’ll reserve judgement, but I have hope this won’t be a whitewash.”
Agreed – but it looks very like being a whitewash.
I’d lay money that Jones is made the fall guy and is fired for being a naughty boy, that the data fraud is covered up, that a new guy – even worse than the old one – is appointed, that ways are found of evading FoIA rules in the name of “openness” and that the report (vindicating New Labour’s policies) comes out a week before the General Election.
Yours,
Despairing Scot
“Trick” out of context? How can it be out of context when juxtaposed to “hide the decline”? Both are in the very same sentence, for crying out loud. Jones is grasping at straws. You can’t get a context any tighter than that.
…and at roughly 4:00PM (ET) a slighly different version of the AP write-up
appeared on YaHoo! under their “World News” subject heading:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_sc/eu_climate_hacked_e_mails
This one has bits of bluster woven throughout.
Let’s call a spade a spade here.
Question: When was the last time an enquiry such as this was deemed by the public to have concluded satisfactorily? That’s right, -never.
The “Establishment” uses this device to bury embarrassing facts, buy enough time to let the public forget what it was all about, get politicians off the hook, and issue the most mild rebuke to the guilty parties, assuming they can actually find anyone guilty of anything. They will NEVER wash their dirty laundry in public. The whole idea of using inquiries and “reviews” such as this is to get control of the situation, limit any further damage to the institution involved, and save the reputations of the Establishment’s insiders.
The only way to avoid the sleep-inducing effects of this review and drag all the outrageous facts kicking and screaming into the light of day, is to prosecute all those involved through the civil and criminal courts.
Everything else is just a waste of time.
How convenient that he will not look into how the CRU models are validated. When you have to throw out 30% of your data to make your model fit the model is not much of an hypothesis. But such he will not look into. Convenient…
Martin Brunby
‘Nomads…..having to flog (eat?) their camels’
‘Flog’ means ‘sell’ (very common English slang term)
I think it should be more than one “trust-looking” guy, perhaps two, so that a competing analysis can be put forward. That is the whole point. If the competing analysis is transparent, it may have a chance to gain the trust. What is at stake here is the credibility. It is more than one guy. One from the Royal Society does not seem to fit the bill.
I think it should be more than one “trust-looking” guy, perhaps two committees, so that a competing analysis can be put forward. That is the whole point. If the competing analysis is transparent, it may have a chance to gain the trust. What is at stake here is the credibility. It is more than one guy. One from the Royal Society does not seem to fit the bill.
Given the gravity of the matter this enquiry should be led by a QC at a minimum.
Kate, you have encapsulated the essence impeccably.
Dave B (13:17:53) :
“The Scots as a race are not swayed by sassenach politicians AGENDA’s, nor are they easily taken in by bullsh1t.”
Not, sadly, true. The Scots led New Labour’s “greener-than-thou” agenda and the current, even more parochial “nationalist” administration is even worse.
“The Uni of Glasgow is not a hotbed of climate nonsense, and has a rep for the practical application of solid science.”
Scottish academia is a hotbed of climate change nonsense. Glasgow University is not immune in that regard.
Yours,
Despairing Scot
Ah, now it is true that the Scots are a dour and pessimistic race. 😉
I checked Glasgow Uni’s news pages. Not a climate change story to be sen in the last three months anyway.
We live in hope, have a dram on me.
Kate is exactly right. If they had decided to fire Jones or anyone else, they would have done it. This ‘independent review’ is simply cover for exonerating the CRU crew from anything except a “tut, tut” for some minor infractions.
Look at who they [and who exactly was ‘they’?] have selected to head the investigation: click As we can see, Muir Russell is truly a member of the status quo; he is a colleague, not a representative of the taxpaying public, which was injured by CRU’s fixing of the data. Muir Russell will not rock the boat.
Two requirements for an honest inquiry are missing: skeptical scientists, as counterparts to Russell and his investigating team, and transparency [full transcripts and evidence publicly provided immediately following the conclusion of the inquiry and the inquiry’s official recommendations – but prior to any discipline being issued. The public will be denied input].
Neither the requirement for skeptical investigators chosen by their side, nor a full account of the investigation will be met. Because an honest inquiry is not the purpose of this investigation; damage control is.
The public’s taxes paid the salaries of Jones and the rest, and the public is fully entitled to know if they were defrauded. But based on the selection of Russell, who has already been lavishly rewarded by the system as Phil Jones and the others were [see the link], it is clear that the fix is already in.
With no skeptical investigators appointed [who must be named by the opposition, not by either Russell, or those who selected him], it means that no individual on this rubber stamp inquiry can be held accountable for the upcoming whitewash because “the committee” will have made the decision, not any particular individual; there will be no minority report. And the public will never be provided with the transcripts and all of the evidence submitted.
Previous experience – a first in Natural Philosophy, and a lay Chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotlan.
Looks like the makings of a whitewash to me. Some psuedo qualifications in science and law. If they really wanted independence they would have picked someone with real qualifications in one, the other or both fields.