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Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.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Speaking this evening, Muir Russell said “I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn.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.
I have exactly zero respect for this so-called review. These people are committed to the cause – period. Put a fork in ’em.
Putting David Eyton of BP on to the Climate Review Panel is wild. Isn’t BP funding CRU projects? The only positive thing that could come out of this is that if Mr. Eyton is a good man, and knows the scientific method, he may be shocked enough by the emails to get BP to pull out of the carbon fraud. Yeah, I’m a dreamer. But I’d feel real good about BP if they were to invest those monies in real eco projects instead of this BS PR stuff. I mean how about if they figure out how to mine the thousands of square miles of plastic debris floating in the oceans? Plastic is an end product of oil extraction and processing so they have a direct tie to the problem.
It would be more rational to assume the fix is in and fight to kick Mr. Eyton off the Panel.
There is a plethora of sound science and data on the side of the skeptics, hardly making it the “new religion”. Warmists have stepped up their use of Disinformation rule #26 by invoking the name of the flat-earthers and making comparisons to pygmies. The warmists are clearly now in cover-up mode in the aftermath of Climategate, and the unraveling has just barely begun. It was the cover-up, not complicity in the actual break-in that brought down Richard Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate.
I am not sure if the panel to examine the CRU allegations is supposed to be unbiased, but possibly with little direct expertise -like a jury-or to have expertise but to have obvious bias.
Geoffrey Boulton-another of the panel- is undoubtedly qualified but he is hardly objective
http://www.rse.org.uk/enquiries/climate_change/talks_slides/boulton_slides.pdf
Tonyb
“No if it’s true it means it holds LESS water…. sorry i had to ;-)”
True! 🙂
“The examiner’s article is very good. The most insightful writeup about Ferenc Miskolczi a newspaper has managed by now.”
Has there been any thorough and neutral reviews about Miskolczi theory? How credible it is?
To me it seems to be synoptic to Spencer and does not rule out Svensmark’s therory.
The terms of reference are very frightening.
“The Independent Climate Change Email Review will only be assessing the conduct of researchers at the UEA, not the conclusions of their scientific research. ”
Clearly they will find misbehaviour in the “delay” in releasing the material requested in the FOI’s, but they will find that everything else is good science.
And if the panel is truly “independent”, there is (from what I can recall) nothing internally inconsistent in the emails. It requires reference to outside information to know what the conspirators are referring to and what they are doing.
This will be a whitewash.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, the whitewash is off to a typical start. I am a bit more cynical than some here, ( OK I am getting old, probably a LOT more cynical than most here ), I wonder if Natureboy’s was a withdrawal is a hat tip to impartiality to muddy the waters.
As for his replacement, I hear Professor Philip Jones has some free time on his hands, looking at his resume, he looks ideal 🙂
I think this will end AGW must sooner than we all thought! The Editor In Chief of Nature MUST resign. It is no longer a credible journal. He/They have destroyed an icon of research and they must all go (so called “climate scientists”) so that the Journal can recover its respectability. BTW same goes for the AAAS etc….
DW (14:39:31) – Quite apart from the lack of any scentific evidence presented, I object to the language of insults you are using. This is a science blog. Please ground yourself in some science. Then explain your hypotheses – but expect them to be challenged, as is normal in the scientific process.
Regarding the Hungarian physicist paper, how does it work over large land masses like Asia where there is not excess moisture available to take place of CO2? This could explain why most of the warming has been observed in Asia and very little warming has been observed in the SH, which is mostly covered with water.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/ Olive oil just removed a message advising that Campbell had resigned its a joke
Nature is complicit in this whole set of shenanigans. It is no wonder that they are circling the wagons along with the scientists of the CRU. I wouldn’t expect anyone at Nature to be an impartial judge on this matter.
There is a concerted effort by Google/or someone in there me thinks to try to supress this story or at least minimise it. Its not even coming up in the news “climategate” etc..mr paranoie me LOL
ScientistForTruth (15:06:05) : I entirely agree.
Nature has been a disgrace and embarrassment to science and continues to be so.
Well, that’s one Nature trick that failed.
How many wheels does this ruddy wagon have?? It must have lost 12 already.
.
Thank you, Anthony; thank you, Andrew Monford (Bishop Hill blog); )thank you, Channel 4 News; thank you, Chinese State Radio; and thanks to all the truth-seekers with expertise who comment on WUWT. Reading all the comments is a pure delight.
I am about as skeptical as anyone about any truth-seeking purpose of this inquiry. We easily can see that the outcome is planned, simply by the inappropriate appointment of Muir Russell at its head — look at his background; look at his statement of regret: ” I regret the loss of [Phillip Campbell’s] expertise”. It is Campbell’s expertise in phonying-up editorials, hijacking peer review for ideological AGW purposes, designing covers that lie, and publishing articles that falsify science (e.g., “Hockey Stick”, one of so many) that has made him an inappropriate choice from the beginning. The new international spotlight on this fraud is what INADVERTANTLY sealed his doom.
I CONSIDER PHILLIP CAMPBELL’S HEAD AS THE FIRST ONE TO ROLL (anyone have other names to contribute? ) AS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PARTICIPANTS IN THIS CONSPIRACY TO “DESTROY THE SCIENCE” OF GLOBAL WARMING. UNFORGIVABLE IF THERE IS TO BE SCIENCE!
Perhaps Cambell’s influence (head-ship) has been only partially severed. After all, resigning from an inquiry is not the same as being removed as the editor of Nature. But we can bet that the world is watching. And are those Germans who took over Nature the same ones who destroyed Scientific American, a once fine popular science magazine, now an AGW rag? And who changed the policies of the once excellent Economist, now also beating the ideological AGW drum? The world is watching.
Perhaps the world will pay more attention to: Kirls 13:37:22, “This is a $7 billion/year industry”. (And do you think that maybe most of those involved financially are trying to use tax dollars/fees [cap-n-trade] or government subsidies to get themselves out of debt or to cover for the fact that they have become incapable of making a profit in the “free market”. I think this $7 billion/year industry is a desperate last-gasp attempt to get out of the enoumous debt that the socialist and bubble (Greenspan, Paulsen et al) economies have inflicted on “us” — citizens of every country.
Two closing comments: 1) Max Hugoson 13:55:05, “Nature is really a dinosaur waiting to die”; and 2) “No longer can the powerful elites control the flow [of] information. A guy typing away in his rec room just changed the course of the UK government’s planned whitewash.”
I think there are a huge number of angry citizens in this world.
“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.”
__________
His expertise in the (current) peer review process could be summed up on one side of a typed page and passed to a gold fish who would do a better and more equitable job of assessing the “climategate” fiasco at CRU in this “enquiry”.
Clever move on behalf of UEA.
Divide the problem into 2. The emails and scientific conduct, and secondly the science itself. Both reviews can fob off adverse comments by stating that the subject is being reviewed by the other panel, nicely obfuscating the whole affair.
More importantly, they can find some damaging stuff in the emails etc, and issue mild rebukes where necessary, – problem dealt with. Meanwhile a team of on-side scientists finds nothing wrong with the science. They will report with a considerable time lag between them, so that any damage limitation can be complete before the next report comes out.
They have taken 3 months to get this far. Not because they are slow, but because climategate didn’t go away. Meanwhile they have been busy behind the scenes working out how to deal with the problem. This is not Watergate, this is something that the majority of Western Governments and a lot of money are committed to. It is not something that outrages the public, as most of them are reliant on the MSM for their viewpoint. Until it outrages the MSM, it is going to be a long, drawn out knife fight. A week is a long time in politics. These reviews will not see the light of day for a few months, and there is much that could happen in between to distract attention.
All credit to Anthony and Co. for keeping it going, and all credit to those who comment here, but I expect we have a way to go yet. These reviews, the review into Mann, and the parliamentary inquiry here in UK will not bring closure, of that I am sure. Example: Penn state inquiry into Mann. How long did the general outcry into the results last? 5 minutes. How did they draw the sting? -announce another inquiry. Politics as usual. The man in the street doesn’t have an attention span longer than yesterdays page 3 in the Sun. The media know it and so do the politicians.
Sorry, I am getting old, so I have seen it all before.
maz2 (Feb 11 14:40) wrote:
Canada’s CBC, known as CBCPravda, has gone to air with this.
Looks to be a first for CBC.
This is the Current.
Glaciergate – Andrew Weaver
====
Actually, Rex Murphy was the first http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2009/12/03/thenational-rexmurphy-091203.html
and, IMHO, did a much better job.
FWIW, after listening to the segment, I sent the following via their Contact Us form:
While it is refreshing to hear the CBC give some coverage to the issue of the declining credibility of the IPCC, Weaver was probably not the person to choose. Weaver (for all his protestations about how the IPCC does not prescribe “policy”) was one of the authors of the “Copenhagen Diagnosis” – described (quite accurately) by the National Post’s Terence Corcoran as:
“[…] an IPCC-related piece of agit-prop issued just before the recent Copenhagen meeting.
“The Copenhagen Diagnosis is as manipulative a piece of policy advocacy as can be found, filled with foreboding and alarming assessments. Described as “an interim evaluation of the evolving science,” it was an attempt to jump-start decision-making at Copenhagen. It failed, perhaps in part because one of the authors was U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann, who plays a big role in the Climategate emails.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2488011
In the same ariticle, Corcoran notes that Weaver said of the 2007 IPCC report that it “isn’t a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles.” And if that isn’t an example of overhyped alarmist advocacy, I don’t know what is.
Furthermore, his protestations regarding the purity of the findings of Working Group I (the so-called “sound/settled science” WG) fail to acknowledge the many conflicts of interest inherent in this so-called “gold standard”. For an example of this ethically-challenged – but much vaunted – “Review” process in action you might want to look at:
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/the-climate-change-game-monopoly-the-ipcc-version/
*Snicker* The Farnsworth Fusor has been manufactured as a cheap neutron source for some time, I wonder where the neutrons are coming from? From what I’ve read, that the fusor achives fusion was established in the 1960s.
Now, if the correct quote from the Oak Ridge paper was along the line of “cannot acheive or sustain break even”, that would be an accurate and non-risable conclusion. Bussards Polywell is an evolution of the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor, Bussard figured out how to eliminate the internal electrode by confining the electrons with magnets.
Once upon a time – before Nature sold its soul to those controlling the flow of federal research funds – Nature published unexpected findings of:
a.) A basic flaw in the Uranium-Lead age of the Solar System [Nature 240 (1972) 56],
b.) Severe mass fractionation (~4 % per mass unit) across the nine stable isotopes of Xenon in the Sun, the Earth, and the carbonaceous chondrites [Nature 240 (1972) 99], and
c.) A pattern of excess Xe-124 and Xe-136 in carbonaceous chondrites that matched that expected in fresh supernova debris from the rapid p- and r-processes of nucloeosynthesis in a supernova explosion [Nature 240 (1972) 99].
In 1972 Nature published a news story on the importance of these unexpected findings [“Isotopes in meteorites”, Nature 240 (1972) 378-379].
Subsequent measurements over the next decade confirmed that poorly mixed supernova debris formed the entire Solar System (e.g., Excess Xe-136 accompanied all of the primordial He at the birth of the Solar System
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm
and Nature even acknowledged “The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System” [Nature 303 (1983) 286].
That same year another journal published a paper showing that the most abundant element inside the Sun is Iron (Fe), although lightweight elements (H and He) cover the top of the Sun’s atmosphere [“Solar abundance of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222].
After 1983 Nature and other major journals switched their efforts to the rebirth of established dogmas of the formation of the Solar System from an interstellar cloud of H and He.
I don’t know why. Was that when the unholy alliance of politicians, federal research agencies and publishers decided to use science as a propaganda tool to control people?
Dr. Philip Campbell might be able to explain why Nature and other major journals have been systematically deceiving the public since 1983.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
I hopr this is not off topic but it has been raised by others including George E Smith who I respect.
There are 4 considerations about CO2
1/ That CO2 is saturated and any increase does not matter -Miskolczi mentioned in one of the first posts, also by Dr Hug see http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm
2/ That radiation absorption of CO2 follows Beer’s law used by Lord Monckton. This resulting in logarithmic decline of absorption as CO2 increases ie exaggerated concern
3/ That CO2 is not saturated but that absorption is insignificant which can be calculated from its spectra, the amount present and beam length in equations such as determined from experimentation in heat transfer equipment by Prof Hoyt Hottel (Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook)
4/ The IPCC assumptions that CO2 is not saturated and that it increases temperature of the atmosphere and this in turn allows more H2O in the atmosphere and together they radiate back to earth. This has been disproved by the various findings such as temperature leading CO2 in ice cores, measurements of CO2 showing very much higher levels in the long past including ice ages and levels around 1940 equal to those at present, satellite data showing little temperature increase, satellite data showing no increase of H2O in the troposphere etc etc.
The media quotes Dr Campbell who then quotes the media who quote Dr Campbell who………! Is the tail wagging the dog or what?
JP (13:48:32) :
This I just found, it is new to me:
I have read the paper, twice, and the review by a physicist, Miklos Zagoni mentioned at
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/ .
or
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/01/13/ferenc-miskolczi%e2%80%99s-saturated-greenhouse-effect-theory-c02-cannot-cause-any-more-global-warming/
or just video
and the actual paper
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
It has some very deep implications if correct and evidently it has withstood scrutiny for some years now though I picked up some contention on Wiki.
Read it, no wait, better to first read the review to prepare you for the paper, it hard to follow due to numerous parameters as you would expect from such a complex system as a planet’s climate, and all written in short form.