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Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.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Speaking this evening, Muir Russell said “I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn.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
Thanks Anticlimactic, that’s the best summary yet, very detailed.
Everyone just loves RealClimate, all of their integrity, right?
The following link goes into Nick Stokes’ (RealClimate wiki) persistent attempts to discredit and stall this paper and here is a link to Dr. Miskolczi’s and the authors line by line explanation countering Stokes’ assertions.
All should read both.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
This one is a real eye opener.
http://miskolczi.webs.com/Answers_to_some_criticism.htm
What really will get you, if you know the difference between closed form integrating an equation and solving an integration by numeric methods, Stokes complains that Miskolczi paper is not acceptable because instead of numerically integrating the equation in a computer like all of the GCM’s do, he actually integrated the closed form of the Schwarzschild- Milne equation instead. Stokes seems not to accept that (authority?). Stokes seems not able to solve the equation himself. I didn’t see any of his objections holding any weight. Basically Stokes seems not like the old tried and true laws of physics, he must trust data more, wonder why.
( For the layman: that is similar to telling Einstein that you will no accept his paper on general relativity because he has only solved closed form equations in his paper. He must rewrite every equation in a differential form in four dimensions so the peer-reviewers can place them in a computer and numerically integrate to approximate the answer to verify his gravitational fields. That’s pretty close to what Stokes seems to be saying. )
Nominees for Inquiry Panel on Global Warming
With an obvious bias that nuclear energy ultimately heats the Earth, the Sun and sustains life, I offer the following names of knowledgeable reviewers that might serve on the new enquiry panel being organized by the University of East Anglia or to replace of Dr. Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature, on the enquiry panel chaired by Sir Muir Russell to investigate claims that scientists covered up and/or distorted data on global temperatures.
1. Dr. Stephen O. Dean, editor, Journal of Fusion Energy.
2. Dr. Tibor Braun, editor, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry.
3. Professor Freeman Dyson of Princeton University.
4. Dr. David Whitehouse, science news reporter.
5. Dr. Benny Peiser, editor of CCN, Cambridge Conference Network.
6. Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
7. Dr. Yurii G. Abov, editor, Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Yadernaya Fizika).
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Due to the complicity and duplicity of the Mainstream Media, Politicians, some wealthy Entrepreneurs, etc., I think all the issues will be papered over, minimized, etcetera.
I imagine the committee will “rephrase” the issues such that “innocence” is the only possible outcome. And, it will be found that “denier” bloggers have “conspired” to make a “mountain out of a mole hill”.
Until, the US Senate drives a stake into AGWs heart, it will continue to be a political “monster” threatening to drain civilization’s resources — for the benefit of the “connected” few. Right now the Senate is loaded up with “true believers” and “connected” individuals — so, I am not holding my breath.
scapegoat anyone?
Re: Miskolczi
Behind the curve by a year and half.
Also discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/debate-thread-miskolczi-semi-transparent-atmosphere-model/
“as a numerical majority” ?!?! Not likely! It would be enough to ask them to include a single “devil’s advocate” — of a milder character than a noted skeptic — on their panel, so that they don’t make fools of themselves, the way the Penn State panel did, by failing to address important leads and topics. That consideration is the only one that will cut any ice with them.
Get a load of this link (interview with Dick Morris): “Can GOP gain 51-seat majority in 2010?”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585243,00.html
@Tucci: But it’s of course a terrific idea for commissions of inquiry to SOMEHOW include input from knowledgeable fringies, as you suggest. All too often the “insiders / normals /establishment-men” think they know it all and thus defeat their purpose (reassuring the public that all is under control) due to the too-narrow scope of their investigation. Example #1, the Warren Commission,
Sure he´s an expert in the peer review process, he´s been distorting it for years
kim (13:26:53) said :
And why on earth did Muir Russell think he was unbiased? Will he be replaced with William Connolley?
===========================
I think Billy Connolley would be a much better investigator than these twits. 🙂
cold hot: “Naturegate?”
now that’s going too far too many climate scandals are just being overblown by the gate suffix
It’s beyond a joke, its gate-gate!
Tucci “I trust Mr. Connolley’s bad opinion as a strong positive indicator of a skeptic’s intelligence”
How do I put this – let’s just say that Wikipedia has been very useful, it has kept people like Billy busy on a fruitless task which will take just minutes to undo (when the time is right) whilst the real campaign was being fought and won elsewhere!
And in his own special way, silly billy has done more than anyone else to galvanise the campaign against alarmism. Come on this joker has been a god send to us – particularly when he was an admin doling out bans left right and centre and convincing everyone he met by his rude manner that there was clearly something rotten in climate science.
A little Nature perspective. From “The Road to Serfdom”, by F.A. Hayek, 1944:
“…the passage in which M. Benda speaks of the “superstition of science held to be competent in all domains, including that of morality…It is to be noted that the dogma that history is obedient to scientific laws is preached especially by partisans of arbitrary authority. This is quite natural, since it eliminates the two realities they most hate, i.e., human liberty and the historical action of the individual.”
…C.H.Waddington’s little book under the characteristic title, “The Scientific Attitude”, is as good an example as any of a class of literature which is actively sponsored by the influential British weekly Nature and which combines claims for greater political power for the scientists with an ardent advocacy of wholesale “planning.”…he clearly sees and even emphasizes that the tendencies he describes and supports inevitably lead to a totalitarian system. Yet apparently this appears to him preferable to what he describes as “the present ferocious monkey-house civilization.”
Dr. Waddington’s claim that the scientist is qualified to run a totalitarian society is based mainly on his thesis that “science can pass ethical judgement on human behavior” – a claim to the elaboration of which by Dr. Waddington, Nature has given considerable publicity. [Footnote here: “The September 6, 1941, issue of Nature contained an essay by Waddington titled “The Relations between Science and Ethics,” together with comments on the article by eight others. Subsequent issues contained further exchanges between Waddington and various others. All of this was ultimately collected in the book…”]
…[From] Dr. Waddington’s book (which was a collection of the just mentioned discussions in Nature). Freedom, he explains, “is a very troublesome concept for the scientist to discuss, partly because he is not convinced that in the last analysis, there is such a thing.”…
…Dr. Waddington’s convictions are largely determined by his belief in “inevitable historical tendencies” which science is presumed to have discovered and which he derives from “the profound scientific philosophy” of Marxism, whose basic notions are “almost, if not quite, identical with those underlying the scientific approach to nature”…”
RICO the lot of them.
There should be consequences for this global fraud.
How is it possible to listen to these “scientists” and not use the term [snip]
Phillip Campbell
You 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.”
Phillip, after reading the following email of LAST YEAR, I found that the widely used statement “the science is settled” was untrue.
‘——————————————
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Source: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt
‘——————————
Cheers
Quote: Fen (08:37:03) :
“There should be consequences for this global fraud.”
There are indeed consequences that none of us expected!
Our democratic governments have been undercut by an unholy alliance of politicians, publishers, journals, and the news media that began using science as a tool of propaganda in the late 70’s or early 80’s.
These are the consequences that absolutely none of us expected to find when we first recognized fraud in out individual fields of science: climatology, cosmology, space sciences, nuclear physics, solar physics, astronomy and astrophysics.
Regretfully,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Sciences
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Hi from Norway 🙂
I picked up this walktrough/walkover of the last 30 years of surfacetempdata collecting methods:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
it is a 111 pages of ripping-to-pieces the credibillity of the global warming bias that almost everything in the IPCC2007 is based upon… If the underlying datasets and the so called compensation-adjustments is so proven messed with, it is GAME OVER for the IPCC-order already!
Every single reference to Global Warming/Climate Change as the cause of every single nature phenomena these days, is based on the FAKED FACT that this temperature-reporting from NOAA-NASA-CRU is showing a rising temperature. Even the climate-models is based on and trimmed to support this lie!
This report, made by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, should be heavily distributed so to make it harder to make such claims of connection -these claims are the ones Politicians build their “climatic power” upon. Ice melting, earthquackes, sealevelrise, heatwaves.. -they all scare the belief into people.
Add the subsea vulcano activity and hotsprings close to both poles…melting ice?? can you beleive it? -this subsea activity is not reported by IPCC, it’s not funded and researced upon either ;-). But by accident it is documented 🙂
((As to why this AGW conspiration was started, my horse is: to prepare for a CO2 market to take over for the fading oil market and power. Those riding the oilmoneypower do not want to lose their influence over the world and it’s trade. CO2-trade is an even more perfect intrument than oil to controll with it’s simply not geograpically dependent. When this truth start to surface, the only coverup left for the power behind is to generate huge, worldwide crises or catastrophes…… or will they try this “wasn’t me” once more ? ))
Kindly, Roger Abel
Campbell may be gone but look who’s replacing him !!!! Boulton.
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/529-russell-panel-needs-complete-overhaul.html
LOLOL….These GWA’s are more worried now that the climate is NOT warming than they are that it might be!
IsoTherm writes:
I agree that the egregious Mr. Connolley has served well as the personification of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi in the Web pages of “Wiki-bloody-pedia” (props to Mr. Monckton for that ever-so-apt descriptor), but I’m quite serious in my suggestion that we use Mr. Connolley’s hate list as a screening tool for the selection of articulate and informed skeptical reviewers of the AGW hypothesis.
The practices of “silly billy” in his obsessive mangling of the Wikipedia site have been reliably informed by a kind of perverse expertise and understanding of sound methodology in the analysis of global climate change. That would have to be the case, else Mr. Connolley could not so proximally perceive the postings and the persons who have undertaken either directly or indirectly to threaten “the consensus” which Mr. Connolley and his co-religionists support so fanatically.
If “silly billy” is indeed a godsend to those of us on the realist side of this exchange, it is less as a poster child for the public ridicule of AGW hysteric fraudulence and rather more as a cohering factor to help us better identify potentially valuable allies who have come independently to the same conclusions about the “Cargo Cult Science” Mr. Connolley has been shoving down people’s throats for the past decade and more.
—
Every day the fraud is exposed. We will not rest. We are going to expose every single rat who propagated this garbage and we are going to expose the media who served as propagandists for the warming alarmists. This is outrageous. Wait until the grab for money is investigated. The investigation will not come from the driveby media, the statists, or the MSM. It will come from those who believe in truth and fact based evidence. We are going to drive out of science and the media every bum and liar who put forth this filth for decades. Say good bye to that vacation condo, you freaks.
JP (13:48:32) :
“OT: Greenhouse effect is a constant.”
Actually , the Miskolczi paper has its own discussion
thread here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/debate-thread-miskolczi-semi-transparent-atmosphere-model/
Unfortunately, it has an abrupt ending, like its damaged.
And thats just when Miskolczi himselv entered the thread.
Very disappointing, because it got really, really interesting!
I wonder why its damaged.
“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.”
NOW THAT IS FUNNY- We all recognized the LIES but apparently only Scientist’s think lies are something else- Scientific “Jargon”
Throw them all in Jail for criminal deception and fraud- Start with Al Gore
They only want our money- and there is darn little left of that at this point
THEIVING -LYING -CRIMINALS -PLAIN AND SIMPLE
If you stole a loaf of bread you would go to jail
THEY STEAL BILLIONS THRU FRAUD- and claim we dont understand Scientific”Jargon”
One of the Innocent Professional Phrases that Campbell dismisses was “we have to hide the decline”.
I have my own phrase for that. It’s called a “smoking gun”.
for a summary of ethics and safety concerns at a high profile cancer research center (mskcc, where clinical trial candidates are developed), please see:
http://www.mskccheats.blogspot.com
“Sloan is pursuing a systemic approach to reducing expenses and increasing revenues […] One example of this is discouraging terminally ill patients from seeking initial treatment or second opinions from the cancer center […] the admission of such patients is counterproductive […] to Sloan Kettering.” [paraphrasing salient features, MSKCC, CFO/Chief Financial Officer]
Institutes and individuals capable of performing such high levels of research clearly know better than to act in so disingenuous and selfish a manner
Why would a non clinician instruct a colleague to withhold/embargo known information relative to availability of clinical trial candidates developed off site, yet tested at MSKCC (e.g. BMS’, Novartis’) when the in house (e.g. Bioorganic’s) candidate had not yet left the proverbial starting gate?
Why have there been reports of high profile non clinicians leveraging clinicians overseeing clinical trials to continue enrollment possibly in variance with the intuition of the clinician … when very large ‘milestone’ (e.g. completion of a clinical trial phase) achievement royalty payments are in the balance?
Why would Sloan build a laboratory building strewn with toxins and knowingly not install ductwork controls?
Why would Sloan abandon a building after its employees are chronically exposed to poison (carbon monoxide) after terminating on pretense employees who complained about heath concerns?
MSKCC has been cited for ’serious’ environmental health and safety infractions by OSHA
MSKCC has been cited by the EPA
Ed Mahoney VP currently heads MSKCC Facilities Management
Sarah Danishefsky Ph.D. (a non clinician) has administered the bioorganic chemistry laboratory
Attorney Shelly Friedman has represented MSKCC when it attempts to assuage a rightfully concerned local community (and its CB8M board) relative to environmental health and safety (EH&S) concerns
Christine Hickey has in the past been a spokesperson for MSKCC
MSKCC, we hoped you’d be our hero.
MSKCC, minimally you’re supposed to care.
Shame on you MSKCC
Boo.
You know better.
How dare you, MSKCC