I’ve read blog posts longer than this report. The Global Warming Policy Foundation of London has this to say about it:
Another Unsatisfactory Rushed Job
Press release
LONDON, 14 April 2010 – The Global Warming Policy Foundation regrets that the Oxburgh Panel has been rushed and therefore extremely superficial. The body of the report is hardly five pages long. The Panel should have taken more time to arrive at more balanced and more trustworthy conclusions as there was no need to rush the inquiry.
The Panel worked by interviewing and questioning staff members of CRU, but failed to interview critical researchers who have been working in the same field for many years. The Panel even ignored, as it admits, to properly review their written evidence.
We welcome the acknowledgement by the Panel that the Urban Heat Island effect on surface temperatures records in and around large cities is important but poorly understood. We also welcome the admission that the IPCC ignored the expressions of uncertainty in CRU papers.
We also note, in the context of the long-term temperature record, its comment that “the potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area. It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work.”
In general, the report is being politely kind to CRU, but in essence rather critical of the disorganised and amateurish use of statistics. It is hardly an endorsement of the quality of the research being carried out at what is supposed to be the world’s leading unit which has received so much government funding.
Given the huge economic and social implications, one would expect that an independent audit would be more rigorous and more even-handed than the Oxburgh panel.
— end
Steve McIntyre writes that he wasn’t interviewed:
Oxburgh’s Trick to Hide the Trick
The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.
They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)
They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee. I’ll report on these issues later in the day as they’ll take a little time to review. First, let’s observe Oxburgh’s trick to hide the “trick”.
Long before Climategate, Climate Audit readers knew that you had to watch the pea under the thimble whenever you’re dealing with the Team. This is true with Oxburgh of Globe International as well.
Oxburgh of Globe International alludes to the “trick..to hide the decline” in veiled terms as follows:
CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we find this regrettable, we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined.
Without specifically mentioning the famous “trick …to hide the decline”, Oxburgh subsumes the “trick” as “regrettable” “neglect” by “IPCC and others”.
But watch the pea under Oxburgh’s thimble.
The Oxburgh Report regrettably neglected to highlight the fact that CRU scientists Briffa and Jones, together with Michael Mann, were the IPCC authors responsible for this “regrettable neglect” in the Third Assessment Report. They also regrettably neglected to report that CRU scientist Briffa was the IPCC author responsible for the corresponding section in AR4.
Oxburgh pretends that the fault lay with “IPCC and others”, but this pretence is itself a trick. CRU was up to its elbows in the relevant IPCC presentations that “regrettably” “neglected” to show the divergent data in their graphics.
read more here
If you really want to know about Climategate, get this book:
Paperback: click image
Kindle version: click here
Great new legal precedent established, here. Does that mean that in future criminal trials, only evidence proffered by the defence will be heard?
Unbelieveble!
I like this gem from page 3 of the report, “Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices.”
We don’t like your tone and you (SKEPTICS) know who you are!
To Bob Ward
When an adult acts like a child, they should be treated as a child. Your childish friends picked a fight that was unnecessary, came home crying with a bloody nose, and now you expect the entire world to apologize to them for it. At best, you are an overprotective mother – enabling her children to behave as self righteous and spoled brats.
These are people’s lives you and your friends are playing with. This research could potentially cost families across the developed world, in the middle of an economic recession no less, thousands of dollars that they cannot afford. To think that this would all sail through without scrutiny is the height of ignorance.
Just as no apology is necessary to a misbehaving child, none is owed to you and your friends. Grow up already, and maybe do a little reading on “scientific method”, “ethics”, “integrity”, and “humility” while you’re at it. Once you’re done with that, come back and do this the right way.
Until then, please go back to your room while the grown ups talk about your behavior.
Based partially on the work of Phil Jones and his motley CRU the UK’s Labour government has committed the UK public to paying almost half a trillion dollars on renewables in the ‘hope’ that they will provide over 15% of our energy!
Even without this the outlook is pretty bleak, and bankruptcy was already the most likely outcome. Higher energy costs and other climate measures will most likely close down most of our remaining industry, and put the UK in to an economic death spiral.
We won’t be alone. Most EU countries are already close to bankruptcy and climate change measures will help them to a similar fate. Obama seems very keen that the US won’t be left out.
With the stakes this high I would have hoped Oxburgh’s panel would do more than just have a chat with the staff and give some mild veiled criticism.
I really do not understand why so many governments are so keen to believe in AGW when the impact of fighting it will be so dire for their countries. The doubts raised over the past six months should be enough to have them look more critically at the evidence, and at least slow down the implementation of their catastrophic remedies.
Allen Ford (18:14:36) :
Great new legal precedent established, here. Does that mean that in future criminal trials, only evidence proffered by the defence will be heard?
Unbelieveble!
There were never any charges of criminal behavior, contrary to what you might have heard on various non-peer-reviewed blogs. This was merely the UK Royal Society appointing an independent review into the science published by the Climate Research Unit (CRU). The fact that they would even go that far based on stolen emails is quite remarkable.
Here was the CRU Science Review panel:
Chair – Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool)
Huw Davies, professor of physics at the Institute for Atmospheric & Climate Science at ETH Zurich
Kerry Emanuel, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Lisa Graumlich, directs the school of natural resources and the environment at Arizona University
David Hand, professor of statistics in the department of mathematics at Imperial College London
Herbert Huppert, professor of theoretical geophysics at the University of Cambridge
Michael Kelly, Prince Philip professor of technology at the University of Cambridge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8579929.stm
Huh, a Professor of Meteorology from MIT – didn’t I just hear about 300 people here saying how that is a perfect background for evaluating climatology work ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/09/lindzen-earth-is-never-in-equilibrium/
Professor of Physics, Professor of Meteorology, Professor of Statistics , Professor of Geophysics – isn’t this a Dream Team of “hard” scientists that could easily see through the “hoax” of AGW ?
But now, suddenly the result is “political”, or “financial”, or “due to sunspots”, whatever. Just accept the loss and move on.
Look at the bright side: maybe Sir Muir Russell will find some dirt on these guys, during the third and final investigation.
It really does not matter what Oxburgh and the rest say. Jones and the gang have been found out and will continue to be under close scrutiny whenever they publish.
No more will their “Black Art” be accepted as science.
Lets face it, the panel into Mann was loaded and the questions raised were specifically aimed to produce a whitewash.
The UK Parliament committee was loaded with AGW proponents and once again, the likes of Steve M were not even asked to give evidence. It seemed to me they had no knowledge (apart from Graham Stringer who at least tried) of the huge implications of the emails.
Finally we have the joke of Oxburgh, who’s credential show a total bias.
So, the fight for justice continues and I for one am not getting off the bus.
I imagine the first draft of the report was in fact much shorter.
“Results from CRU research are robust. The science is settled. Nothing more to see here, please move along.”
No doubt the panel felt the need to expand the report to 5 pages in order to justify the tens of hours members put into the back-breaking work of making nice with the CRU staff and plowing through that hefty reference list.
May 6th is the date for the general election in the UK although it does not affect me directly however, I fear the unelected Gordon Brown will actually get elected as there is no real opposition to speak of and they are drunk on thoughts of koolaid taxes too.
If Gordon “I saved the world from finacial doom” Brown is elected and the Labour part wins we will see many “climate” policies enacted with the rest of the Western world following.
Australia is next this year.
More a greywash than a whitewash.
Damning with faint praise comes to mind.
Severe criticism but toned down to suit.
DaveE.
I call 3 out of 3.Its never the stupid act that sinks politicos, its the cover up they attempt.Its funny that both reports on CRU so far, do not support their stated results, when read completely.Its much like the climate alarm claims, the headline is seldom backed by the content.Is this the new science?Respect my authority? IT does not fly, all the spin in the world won’t save the AWG cause.Most of us do not specialise in stats or new age science, but we all know human nature.Poor missunderstood climate scientists. Yet each report has damned the CRU staff while pretending praise, its a fine art that double speak.SYA is in full swing inside the ivory towers.
After reports like this I want to see a reporter ask the serious question:
“Lord XXXXX, do you think the results of your inquiry might have been different if your commission had considered the facts before coming to a decision?”
Patrick Davis (19:43:47) :
“If Gordon “I saved the world from finacial doom” Brown is elected and the Labour part wins we will see many “climate” policies enacted with the rest of the Western world following.”
Interestingly, of the 3 major parties, all of which are signed up to CAGW, the Labour party is the only one to approve of Heathrow’s essential third runway. The Conservatives and Liberals are against citing climate. Lots of smoke and mirrors methinks.
Robert E. Phelan (08:23:40) :
Of course Oxburgh was rushed. There is an election coming up very soon in the UK and Labour needs to get its train back on the track. I hope the UK electorate is not as stupid as HMG seems to believe.
@ur momisugly Robert – Please be aware that David of the opposition is not any better when it comes to AGW and it was thatcher that started this off, when i place my tin foil hat on i believe that the UK goverment realises that the only way for the UK economy to recover is if we can get the rest of the world believeing and then sell them all the products that go with it. The UK hopes to lead the world in green technology, we have CRU and the MET who are experts???
“Mike Post (02:47:33) :
Interestingly, of the 3 major parties, all of which are signed up to CAGW, the Labour party is the only one to approve of Heathrow’s essential third runway. The Conservatives and Liberals are against citing climate. Lots of smoke and mirrors methinks.”
Indeed but “they” have to compete with Frankfurt.
And we’ve just had one of the pro-AGW news channels tonight promote this rubbish, SBS. Yeah the “science” is settled. We are killing the planet with our patio heaters.
Scientist, or the scientific establishment, across the world should hang their heads with shame; that they do not have the integrity and rigor to throw out their bad apples will come back and haunt them. They will lose the trust of the pubic who will not object when the politicians begin to cut funding for their expensive toys like they have at CERN.
Lawrence Solomon has a good writeup on the Oxburgh report in today’s National Post:
“Lawrence Solomon: The Non-Inquiry of Climategate”
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/04/15/lawrence-solomon-the-non-inquiry-of-climategate.aspx
Paul
Apparently the chairman of Imperial Tobacco is going to convene an “independent “study into Smoking and Health.
Another National Post article about the CRU whitewash:
“Peter Foster: Climategate whitewash”
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/15/peter-foster-climategate-whitewash.aspx
Paul
For what it is worth, I’ll be hearing Lord Oxburgh speak at the Grand Challenges Summit in Chicago. The program is here:
http://www.iit.edu/grand_challenges/program/
I’m attending in my capacity as Dr.P.H. candidate for the University of Illinois.
Now…what should I ask him? Maybe I could just read the comments section for this post to him?? Hah! I’d be tossed out in a second.
Interesting collection of warmists, I’ll be mixing with the “best.” Cheers!
Lord Oxburgh was a no-show at the Grand Challenges summit today, due to air travel issues & volcanoes!!
The science advisor to Pres. Obama, Dr. John P. Holdren, gave quite a stem-winder about global warming! I wish you folks could have seen it, I was out-numbered so I kept my yap shut! Temperatures soaring, ice caps melting etc.
Later!