NOTE: Updates added, refresh for latest.
The Muir Russell Report is out. Read here in PDF. Unfortunately Russell is another apologist who doesn’t ask relevant questions of both sides, only one side. Even BBC now thinks the CRU wears a halo:
Compare that to:
CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones’s response of 21/02/2005 to Warwick Hughes’s request for Jones’s raw climate data:
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.“
Here’s some comments around the web, link to the report follows:
I guess the main question coming out of the Muir Russell report is when is he going to be appointed to the House of Lords and his choice of appelation. Lord Muir of Holyrood?
They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The issue here is whether Wahl and Briffa violated IPCC rules. Asking Overpeck about this is not very helpful since Overpeck is hardly impartial. Muir Russell had to examine what Wahl and Briffa actually did and then examine the conduct against actual IPCC rules, not after-the-fact opinions by parties to the conduct.
The findings of the Fred Pearce Inquiry on this point stand:
These back channel communications between the paper’s authors [Wahl] and IPCC authors [Briffa], including early versions of the paper, seemed a direct subversion of the spirit of openness intended when the IPCC decided to put its internal reviews online.
More from Steve:
Muir Russell said that it wasn’t the scientists weren’t to blame for defamatory language in emails, e.g. calling people “frauds”, “fraudit”, “bozos”, “morons” and so on. It was Microsoft’s fault.
They asked:
Indeed, some submissions have characterised them as ‗unprofessional‘, or as evidence of CRU‘s contribution to a ‗poisoned atmosphere‘ in climate science.
Muir Russell blamed email itself for the language:
14. Finding: The extreme modes of expression used in many e-mails are characteristic of the medium. Crucially, the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.
They observe:
Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.
But defamatory language by CRU scientists in emails is still defamatory language. That the scientists wouldn’t use such language face-to-face with the targets of their abuse is no justification. Ask Tiger Woods about email.
=============================
UPDATE from Anthony:
Yes, I’m sure Sir Muir didn’t think this was unprofessional…nooo. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but I doubt Sir Muir ever looked at this one:
From: “thomas.c.peterson” To: Phil Jones Subject: [Fwd: Marooned?] Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:10:02 -0500
Hi, Phil,
I thought you might enjoy the forwarded picture and related commentary below.
I read some of the USHCN/GISS/CRU brouhaha on web site you sent us. It is both interesting and sad. It reminds me of a talk that Fred Singer gave in which he impugned the climate record by saying he didn’t know how different parts were put together. During the question part, Bob Livzey said, if you don’t know how it is done you should read the papers that describe it in detail. So many of the comments on that web page could be completely addressed by pointing people to different papers. Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it think.
Warm regards,
Tom
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445567a.html
Nature 445, 567 (8 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/445567a
Editorial
“The IPCC report has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the sceptics’ feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous.”
– Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\marooned.jpg”
Here’s NCDC Tom Peterson’s (GHCN lead investigator) cartoon diddle:
I think NCDC should figure out how much public funded time Peterson spent on this and dock his pay.
=============================
The notion that IPCC reports are supposed to present a selective view of climate science, representing the judgments of a select group of experts is in fact contrary to the mission of the IPCC.
The Muir Russell mischaracterization of the IPCC becomes relevant in the report when it uses the characterization as a criterion for evaluating the efforts revealed in the emails to minimize or exclude certain perspectives. For instance, the Muir Russell report explains with respect to one alleged instance of exclusion of peer reviewed literature from IPCC drafts that (p. 76):
Those within the [IPCC] writing team took one view, and a group outside it took another. It is not in our remit to comment on the rights and wrongs of this debate, but those within the team had been entrusted with the responsibility of forming a view, and that is what they did.
This speaks directly to problems of the IPCC, revealed to some degree by the emails, but of much broader concern. The IPCC is supposed to “identify disparate views” not hide them from view or take the side held by the author team. Had the Muir Russell review actually taken an accurate view of the IPCC, it is likely that its judgment about the appropriateness of the behaviors revealed by the emails would be considerably different.The Register/Orlowski:
Russell was appointed by the institution to investigate an archive of source code and emails that leaked onto the internet last November. The source code is not addressed at all. His report suggests that the problems were of the academics’ own making, stating that they were “united in defence against criticism”. Yet the enquiry found that despite emails promising to “redefine” the peer review publication process, and put pressure on journal editors, staff were not guilty of subverting the IPCC process, and their “rigour” and “honesty” were beyond question.
…
The panel avoided examining the scientific work of the CRU Team – as have the two other reviews of the leaked archive by Lord Oxburgh, and the Commons Select Committee on science. If the academics had used bats’ wings or tea leaves to create temperature reconstructions, that wasn’t a matter for any of the panels to judge. And this is undoubtedly a shortcoming. The voter is entitled to see the evidence and understand the arguments that may answer the question: “Is this climate thing anything to worry about?”
===================================================
UPDATE:
In the event, the inquiry conducted detailed analysis of only three cases of potential abuse of peer review. And it investigated only two instances where allegations were made that CRU scientists such as director Phil Jones and deputy director Keith Briffa misused their positions as IPCC authors to sideline criticism. On the issue of peer review and the IPCC, it found that “the allegations cannot be upheld”, but made clear this was partly because the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was “team responsibility”.
The report is far from being a whitewash. And nor does it justify the claim of university vice-chancellor Sir Edward Action that it is a “complete exoneration”. In particular it backs critics who see in the emails a widespread effort to suppress public knowledge about their activities and to sideline bloggers who want to access their data and do their own analysis.
Most seriously, it finds “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law]”. Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.
===========================================
UPDATE:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”? – Anthony Watts
jaymam says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:05 pm
It can take up to 40 years for a scientific hoax to be accepted as a hoax. In the meantime, anyone questioning the hoax is likely to be attacked.
[–snip for brevity–]
Russell has noted that Dawson’s whole academic career appears to have been “one built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and deception, the ultimate gain being international recognition”. (From Wikipedia)
That begins to sound familiar, like the many con men of banking.
In fact, the name ‘Maurice Strong’ seems to fit that description quite readily …
jaymam says:
July 7, 2010 at 6:05 pm
It can take up to 40 years for a scientific hoax to be accepted as a hoax. In the meantime, anyone questioning the hoax is likely to be attacked.
[–snip for brevity–]
In 2003, Dr Miles Russell published the results of his investigation into Dawson’s antiquarian collection and concluded that at least 38 specimens were clear fakes. Russell has noted that Dawson’s whole academic career appears to have been “one built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and deception, the ultimate gain being international recognition”. (From Wikipedia)
That begins to sound familiar.
In fact the name ‘Maurice Strong’ fits that description perfectly!
Wouldn’t it be priceless if the same person(s) inside UEA would send out another batch of e-mails/ documents now, making a total fool of all these whitewash artists?
…or if flying monkeys came down and made the whole, naughty AGW thing go away entirely? Oh, happy day!
if we dont agree with their findings, then their findings are clearly wrong. amirite?
The following notes all apply to the Piltdown Man hoax, but they seem amazingly relevant today!:
As a matter of practice, a fraud or hoax is much more likely to succeed if it appears to be validated by an authority. In general, one does not expect a professional in a field to concoct a hoax. Experience teaches that this expectation is not always met.
Although the team had excellent credentials none was truly competent in dealing with hominid fossils; their expertise lay elsewhere. The British museum people, Woodward and Pycraft, made numerous errors of reconstruction and interpretation.
a key reason why the hoax succeeded was because it fit in very well with the theories of the time.
Far from being a triumph of Science the hoax points to common and dangerous faults. The hoax succeeded in large part because of the slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful examination using the methods available at the time would have immediately revealed the hoax.
The hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further reconsideration.
(From talkorigins)
Mike says:
“Theft is theft even if it was an inside job.”
Mike, if someone breaks into your home and takes a picture of your wife’s jewellry try claiming theft on the insurance policy. The emails and files were copied and distributed without permission. All of the information inthe emails and files should have been available for public perusal under the FOIA, so yes, they were taken and distributed without permission, but stolen? No, afraid not.
I’ve wondered all along if there are more emails and files out there and there is a second shoe waiting to drop.
As for Prof Jones, he’s a busted flush, and he’ll know it. He will be aware he’s had a very lucky acquittal, but knows he can’t find himself in court again. He will also know that the outcome of “inquiries” of the type held by Sir Muir aren’t held in high esteem by the British public, like Widgery (Bloody Sunday) and Hutton (Iraq War/Death of Dr. Kelly), the Establishment gets temporary relief with a cover-up, but the facts remain the same, and are still out there for future investigations. Prof Jones is ruined and he knows that his conduct was and continues to be unacceptable, and that time, like the tide, will eventually catch up with him.
Benjamin P says:
“if we dont agree with their findings, then their findings are clearly wrong. amirite?”
Probably, but it’s not the findings that are the issue it’s the lack of rigor in the inquiry. It was held in private, and the only witnesses were the accused, the judges had links to the beliefs espoused by the accused and evidence showing potential malfeasance was ignored. The judges also took views about the IPCC procedures that weren’t true, and simultaneously let the accused off the hook. Amirite?
@ur momisugly AntonyIndia July 7, 2010 at 8:26 pm:
I’ve been expecting that at any moment. Whoever did it may have thought one batch was good enough, or he/she may not have. If there is more, it may account for why Phil Jones hightailed it out at the very beginning. (On the other hand, it may have been Jones himself. He was one of my early choices.) But the person may have left some in reserve – in which case the CRU crew may have been waiting all this time for the other shoe to drop.
If it happens I won’t be the most surprised person around.
@ur momisugly 899 says July 7, 2010 at 7:06 pm:
There are probably 5 to 10 times as many people now who keep track of some of this and have familiarized themselves on the topic. All the polls show big increases in awareness of the counter arguments. The shady dealings have been noted by millions and millions.
Did you go to the link? I don’t know if Solomon’s assessment is right on, but if it is even close, a LOT has been accomplished. And people ARE awake to it. The warmers are in denial and hoping they can get their momentum back, but it ain’t gonna happen. The entire dynamic is different.
The people don’t have to agree with every point we make. They just need to be alert to the shennanigans – and they are, to a pretty fair degree. Just because the MSM is pushing something doesn’t mean people are swallowing it. You are giving the MSM too much credit.
The British Establishment is a strange organism which, throughout its history, fiercely cares for, protects and enriches its membership and ruthlessly crushes ‘outsiders’ who question it or pose a threat to it in any way. Universities and the BBC are parts of the establishment and will protect each other and will be protected at great cost to the ordinary taxpayer. But there is a ‘tipping point’ which will occur when, as in the historic Poll Tax riots, when the British public will no longer tolerate being lied to and stolen from . The American War of Independence had its roots in the anger of ordinary Brit colonists who objected so fiercely to being taxed without representation that they defeated the armed forces sent to bring them into line by the establishment of the day.
All of the enquiries instituted by the recently-departed Labour Government have been of a similar nature, but the truth has a habit of eventually emerging.
As an example, I note that the calls for a new enquiry into the alleged suicide of Dr Kelly, the WMD inspector, are gathering momentum since the fact emerged that for Dr Kelly, cutting his own wrist to bring about his death was a physical impossibility for him due to an elbow injury that rendered him incapable of even cutting his own steak at dinner!
While the Establishment will purr in satisfaction with another enquiry agreeably disposed of, public pressure to reveal the truth will eventually carry the day; there are too many rational sceptics to lose, in the end.
From my long experience of auditing any audit which finds nothing wrong hasn’t been done properly. Especially 3 of them. When the piper alpha rig blew up some years ago a major criticism was that it had been frequently audited and nothing had ever been found wrong, even though the faults were patently evident. Whitewash.
cheers David
So it should of course be legal to hack private or company emails. Those who oppose this should be jailed. Is that the point here?
And is the discussion on the numbers over – them being quite valid?
pat says:
July 7, 2010 at 9:23 am
“Last month, in fact, virtually every single day saw temperatures below the mean experienced over the last half-century. The Danish data – taken daily – casts doubt on climate models that had predicted a steady warming of the Arctic.””
In fact, in three months there will a radical cooling of the Arctic!!
I didn’t expect any integrity from this investigation…
Ironic that the “decision” came out in the middle of a heatwave.
Letter and content were being examined but NOT the science.
I think the audio file here is relevant and interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8795000/8795643.stm
What “data” exactly? The “adjusted”, “homogenised” data? Well, we know the CRU “lost” the raw, vitally important, data after moving to new offices, and there is no mistaking that in e-mails from Jones.
PAH! I am keeping my can of whitewash for it’s intended purpose, slapping it on a wall!
I dunno, from memory, “whitewash” was used to paint walls etc, a powder? A white powder, mixed with water, and then applied liberally?
Michael Larkin says:
July 8, 2010 at 4:40 am (Edit)
I think the audio file here is relevant and interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8795000/8795643.stm
It is. Can you remember roughly what time during the ‘today’ broadcast the item was slotted?
Every soldier knows that the more of your own guys that get wounded, the more of the wounded you have to carry, the less likely that you are making progress. Jones, Mann et-al should have been left behind for the good of the AGW movement. We skeptics should be glad that the warmists show such willingness to drag their wounded. It dooms their mission.
I have just done a quick scan of relevant articles in the CIFGreen part of the Grauniad blog. Moonbat and the editorial writers are unconsciously funny, being very condescending and I-told-you-so about the MR report, but the great majority of comments in reply are scathing, so I feel that the Grauniad’s readership is not toeing the Grauniad generally Warmist line. Fred Pearce does make some sense, in a limited manner, but the paper has generally gone back to it’s original stance on CAGW, and to heck with us evil deniers!
Got it. 1:42 into the 7/7 R4 today program.
“Wouldn’t it be priceless if the same person(s) inside UEA would send out another batch of e-mails/ documents…”
It is obvious that whoever publicly posted the East Anglia emails and the Harry_Read_ Me file had/has access to all the emails on the server. According to Phil Jones the posted emails comprise only a small fraction of the total.
Since the poster had the requisite knowledge to get away with outing the CRU crew, while avoiding being caught by the large police task force assigned to determine his identity, he certainly must also have had the foresight to keep the rest of the emails and other incriminating files in his possession, as insurance.
It is that likelihood that has kept anyone from claiming that anything in the posted emails or in the Harry_Read_Me file was faked. Not one of the senders or recipients of any email has stated that they are not 100% genuine.
OK there is something very fishy going on with the moderation over at the Guardian on this article.
Both myself and poster WheatFromChaff have been censored in posts mentioning Dr. Michael Kelly and his comments on CRU
Neither of us have posted anything threatening, defamatory or otherwise abusive and have instead highlighted Kelly’s comments.
This is raw political censorship at its worst and is utterly reprehensible, not to mention disturbing.