Lord Oxburgh’s whirlwind whitewash tour

When Oxburgh produced a 5 page report on the UEA/CRU Climategate issue, we immediately say it as “spartan”, while some called it “efficient”. We wondered how such a small report could be done with a team of people and 2-3 weeks of time. The secret it turns out, is to focus on making sure that coffee, lunch, and “working dinners” are prominently part of the whirlwind schedule. Oh, and to be sure not to interview anyone one-on-one. Josh of Cartoons by Josh writes:

Steve’s post yesterday had me chortling away this morning. I too had got the impression that the whole Oxburgh team were in Norwich for around 2-3 weeks. To see the actual schedule was just too funny.

Yeah, I’ll say. See Josh’s new cartoon below.

Steve McIntyre writes:

Through FOI requests, we have obtained the actual schedule of the Oxburgh panel online here.

Here is the actual schedule for the panel hearings in Norwich on April 7-8.

9:30 a.m. – 9.45 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby) Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss and Jacqui Churchill, VCO Coffee and Tour round CRU
9.45 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library 30 minute presentation by Phil Jones followed by questions
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members – room number 00.2 CRU
1:30-3:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
3.30-4.30 pm If needed: follow-up meeting with Phil Jones and Peter Liss
4.30-5.30 pm Panel private meeting
5.30 pm Peter Liss to chaperone Panel to Zicer Layby for taxis to hotel
7.00 p.m. Working Dinner at Caistor Hall

Thursday 8 April
8.45am- 9.00 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby). Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss Coffee in CRU
9.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library
10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library
11.00-12:30 pm Discussion – CRU Library
12:30-1:30 pm LUNCH for panel members – Sainsbury Centre, Garden Restaurant – Jacqui to collect and escort
1.30 p.m. – 3.00 p.m. Final Meeting
3.00 p.m. – 3.30 p.m. Coffee + Depart in taxis from Zicer Layby

Travel arrangements (obtained through FOI) show that this schedule was adhered to. Oxburgh arrived in Norwich at 6:30 pm on the evening of April 6 and had a train reservation back to Cambridge at 3.40 pm on April 8.

More here.

And of course, Oxburgh never interviewed anyone who was critical of CRU.

Steve’s post yesterday had me chortling away this morning.

I too had got the impression that the whole Oxburghteam were in Norwich for around 2-3 weeks.
To see the actual schedule was just too funny.
My cartoon is not nearly as amusing but I put it on my site anyway with a  link to you Steve’s

Advertisements

83 thoughts on “Lord Oxburgh’s whirlwind whitewash tour

  1. Great cartoon, Josh!

    What kind of hard-nosed interview allows a 30-minute sales pitch/mea culpa/hint-as-to-what-questions-to-ask/presentation before the questioning begins?

    I’m betting the only thing hard in those two days were the crumpets, if the staff was careless in their grocery shopping, and the toilet seat tops in the loo. (Wait… loo breaks weren’t on the schedule anywhere. Tough job, eh?)

  2. The problem is that Oxburgh’s circle of human acquaintances, as opposed to his fellow apparatchiks, is likely to be too small to give him concern to uphold the highest possible standards.

    Unlike Monckton, Oxburgh is the kind of Englishman that is now in the ascendent.

  3. I’m surprised anyone could find any whitewash in the shops after he was finished. The investigation was a joke, the very thin report was a joke.

    As for conflict of interest it is interesting to know that the good Lord Oxburgh is the Honorary President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falk Renewables.
    http://www.ccsassociation.org.uk/about_ccsa/staff.html
    http://www.falckrenewables.com/

    Ron Oxburgh:
    I’m really very worried for the planet
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/interview/story/0,12982,1240021,00.html

    So the whitewash was no surprise.

  4. Keep up the witch hunt!

    REPLY: Not a witch hunt at all, but a humorous and satirical look at how poorly conducted this investigation was. What’s the point of doing a half assed job if your presentation to the public seems to point to doing a professional job? Why would it take an FOIA request to get something as simple as a visit schedule? – Anthony

  5. From D1 Oils website”:-

    “Lord Oxburgh Appointed Non-Executive Director and to become Chairman in 2007
    D1 Oils plc (D1), the UK-based global producer of biodiesel, is pleased to announce the appointment of Lord Oxburgh as a Non-Executive Director of the Company with the intention that he becomes Chairman in early 2007. When Lord Oxburgh succeeds to the Chairmanship, the present Chairman, Karl E. Watkin, will remain as a Non-Executive Director of the Company.

    Lord Oxburgh is a long-standing public advocate of the need to address climate change issues. He served as the Non-Executive Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading plc from 2004 to 2005, during which time he took a close interest in the company’s environmental technologies. Since then, Lord Oxburgh has been an adviser to Climate Change Capital, a specialist investment banking group focused on companies and financial institutions affected by the policy and capital market responses to climate change.”

    Always good to have someone who is totally impartial running an inquiry!!!

  6. Thursday 8 April
    8.45am- 9.00 a.m. Taxi to CRU (drop off Zicer Layby). Met by Acting Director, CRU Prof Peter Liss Coffee in CRU
    9.15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m. Meeting with Phil Jones, Tim Osborn and team in CRU Library
    ——————————————
    Missing 15 min (9.00 a.m. – 9.15 a.m.) looks suspicious ;-)

    REPLY: Seems about right though. There’s always some “slop” in whitewash. – Anthony

  7. Breakfast.
    Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
    Tea.
    Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
    Lunch.
    Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
    Afternoon Tea.
    Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
    Photo-op.
    Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
    Dinner.
    Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
    Press report.
    Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.

    There. That should do it.
    What a pretty fence we have painted.
    That’ll keep out those nosy neighbors.
    Anyone for vacation?

  8. Enneagram says:
    September 9, 2010 at 9:27 am
    Surprisingly no tea at all!, it seems they are not gentlemen.
    That does not help at all Please don’t bring the tea party in this true science will do it not that!!!

    lorne a P/C Canadian

  9. COFFEE?!? You can actually get coffee in England? Heck, I’m booking a flight.
    …. and I’ll bet they put non-fat milk in it during their nice little chit-chat. Which, after analysis and adjustments, was labeled 4% or “whole” milk – – well, maybe even “cream”… Say what? … Hey! Maybe down the road in time someone on the inside will upload a bunch of emails onto a public server, relating to these meetings, wherein we’ll find the statement, “We not only creamed our coffee, we also “creamed” the report!” And when accused of “white washing” the report, Oxburgh will protest, “Oh no, my Good Fellow. That was just a reference to someone spilling milk on one copy of the report before being handed out to the press. How could you possibly think otherwise?”
    I’d be ROTFL if it wasn’t so pathetic.

  10. In the Parliamentary Hearing analysis SM assumes that the committee was tricked into believing that the committee worked long and diligently.

    Why does one have to presume that the committee was tricked? Is it not simpler to assume that all were working through what was perceived to be a difficult situation? It would certainly explain the lack of seemingly obvious follow-up questions. I did go to the web site and listen to the hearing.

    British Coffee? hmmm

  11. The AGW world is in full circle-the-wagons mode. A year ago I thought their side had some legitimate points to make but no more. I can’t get a straight answer or an open debate out of the AGW sites — just condescension, ridicule and of course censoring.

    Over at http://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/#comment-3748 I managed to get one comment through taking a few of Paul Ehrlich’s ripest scare talk points to task — including his claim that the ocean’s would die of DDT poisoning by 1979.

    To my surprise someone actually defended that claim saying that because DDT was banned (mostly) the oceans were saved.

    When I pointed out how miniscule those years of unbanned DDT would have been in the vastness of the ocean, and asked whether anyone actually would argue that that amount of DDT would have killed the ocean, the moderator censored the posts as “inflammatory” or demanded that I cite peer-reviewed work or dismissed the amounts I calculated (.2 micromicrograms/liter) with “small concentrations of pollutants are inconsequential” which was exactly the point I was making.

    I know everyone here has war stories like this. I’m now convinced the AGW side can’t make their case in open debate and they know it.

  12. This is why time spent at the UEA is held in such high esteem worldwide. A 2 year course at the UEA would take at least 15 years elsewhere. No wonder the British establishment (and giddy but informed climatologists worldwide) are circling the wagons to defend the honor of their best and brightest.

  13. I think the time and expense devoted to formulating that whitewash was excessive! A few phone calls could have produced the same results. Ovbiously, the participants wanted to take a junket, hobnob about nothing, and call it good. All on taxpayer funds, no doubt.

  14. Professor Michael E. Mann, has determined, using a novel PCA based algorithm that Oxburgh and team spent 60 days in Norwich. The new algorithm is fed with ‘time proxy’ data, (credit card receipts, coffee mugs, fluff obtained from coat pockets, train tickets, etc.) and deduces those proxies which most absolutely agree with the known truth (i.e. whatever Oxburgh says).

  15. Its not so bad, I thought they all met and discussed in Cancun, Bali and Bora Bora. Now that would have taken a few weeks.

  16. “And of course, Oxburgh never interviewed anyone who was critical of CRU.”

    Their remit was to produce the exoneration in no longer that 30 days. That left no time to create an appearance of objectivity. I suspect there were also budget considerations. Creating an appearance of objectivity is an addition-charge service on Oxburgh’s whitewashing price list.

  17. Will you all please lay off the British Coffee, the only reason you mercans are drinking the stuff is because we cut off your tea supply a while back ;-)

  18. @Huxley, 10:47 am: This has always been primarily a wide-ranging public policy debate and only tangentially about science, although obviously, the science was chosen to conform to pre-existing notions. Therefore, there can be no “debate” in the true sense of the word. If one breaks out on one of their websites, of course they quash it. Once they declared the debate over, their response could only be scorn, insults, a few cherry-picked facts and finally, censorship.

    Truth, transparency and the scientific method have long ago left the barn.

  19. I really really hope EAU is reading all this….

    So they understand how low their reputation is sunken….they just can`t help themselves embarrassments comes natural to them!! :) Is England totally corrupt these days ??

  20. Me and Mr.Jones…..
    we got a thing going on
    We both know that it’s wrong
    But it’s much too strong to let it cool down now.
    ….

  21. Be afraid, be very afraid. From Oxburgh’s current bio..

    http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/ernest-oxburgh/27143

    Biography
    Lords career
    Member Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) 2000-

    So he’s a ‘peer’ of the committee that interviewed him yesterday. Establishment man, safe pair of hands, bit under the weather yesterday so didn’t manage a blinder that day. Not to worry, we’ll produce a corrected response in a few days.

    Or we should worry, especially given closing comments about how the upper and lower houses could prevent this kind of mess repeating by changing our FOI rules. That way they can try to hide the decline in science a while longer. Hopefully.

    (Oh, and we can make decent coffee. We do have whole milk. We’re not usually allowed to drink it in a library though, especially if our work can’t be reproduced)

  22. I am indebted to Jimbo for providing the intriguing link showing the interests of Lord Oxburgh.

    Let us try to find a way through the convoluted path this reveals.

    Lord Oxburgh is Honorary president of the CSA (Carbon Capture and Storage Association)
    http://www.ccsassociation.org.uk/about_ccsa/staff.html

    and also of the renewables co Falk renewables
    http://www.falckrenewables.com/

    According to its website, as of November 2009 ‘the Association benefits from a close working relationship with the UK Government and European Commission in developing an appropriate regulatory framework for CCS and influencing policy developments on an international level.’
    http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=Carbon_Capture_and_Storage_Association#Funding

    The co secretary of the CSA is David Green o.b.e who is described as a renewables lobbyist
    http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=David_Green_(renewables_lobbyist)

    Interestingly he is also Chief Executive of the UK Council for sustainable energy
    http://www.powerbase.info/index.php?title=UK_Business_Council_for_Sustainable_Energy

    ‘The UKBCSE was established in May 2001 as a business lobby to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Representing the main energy providers in the UK it has become a reputable body on the potential for renewable energy in Britain and has close government connections.’

    As stated in the link above;
    Quote: ‘he (David Green) is also company secretary to the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (since 2005) also in the same building suggesting a revolving door with potential conflicts of interest.’

    To complete the story we can do no better than repeat the comments of our poster Tenuc.

    “Lord Oxburgh Appointed Non-Executive Director and to become Chairman in 2007
    D1 Oils plc (D1), the UK-based global producer of biodiesel, is pleased to announce the appointment of Lord Oxburgh as a Non-Executive Director of the Company with the intention that he becomes Chairman in early 2007. When Lord Oxburgh succeeds to the Chairmanship, the present Chairman, Karl E. Watkin, will remain as a Non-Executive Director of the Company.
    Lord Oxburgh is a long-standing public advocate of the need to address climate change issues. He served as the Non-Executive Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading plc from 2004 to 2005, during which time he took a close interest in the company’s environmental technologies. Since then, Lord Oxburgh has been an adviser to Climate Change Capital, a specialist investment banking group focused on companies and financial institutions affected by the policy and capital market responses to climate change.”

    If we follow the virtuous circle this reveals, we have Lord Oxburgh-the Honorary President of a lobby group for carbon capture (CCSA) who is Chairman of two renewable energy companies-windfarms and biofuels- and is an investment adviser for companies involved in climate change. He has strong UK Govt connections and operates from the same building as the UK council for sustainable development-whose Chief Executive is Co secretary of the CCSA. He was chairman of an enquiry set up to examine CRU, whose ‘evidence’ that the world is warming would benefit the aims of …err.

    You fill in the missing sentences but I am sure it is all entirely innocent

    Tonyb

  23. I am sure the 5 pages were written before the meeting. Can’t allow clerical work to distract from a fun that was had by all at a mutual addoration society meeting.

  24. @Ken (“It must have been quite an effort to stretch out that report to a full five pages.”)

    Nah. I can knock out five pages on any topic you care to name easy…

    1. Cover Page
    2. Revision History
    3. Table of Contents
    4. Introduction
    5. Summary

  25. I’m English, although I don’t know M’Lord Oxburgh personally. I drink ‘coffee’ as we poor souls – survivors of the Siamese Twins – Blair Brown – experiment in enriching through pauperisation – know it (probably grated roast squirrels dangley bits, if I look at the label, according to some of our non-English correspondents, possibly correctly – but it does perk me up in the morning!).
    I still find the Oxbrugh report – much highlighted in the media as, mostly, “CRU Innocent but dilatory” – one of the best whitewashes since the Kelly murder or suicide report. NB Tony B.Liar is Innocent. His book proves that. Of course you believe him.
    It is sad that the [am I using the term correctly?] scientists behind the CRU/UEA etc AGW are so concerned for their skins, their jobs and empires and prestige, that they seemingly have to resort to, well, tactics. I must not be libellous – just good debating tactics. Plainly.

  26. NoAstronomer says:
    September 9, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    For an honorable English gentleman not drinking tea it is indicative of the worst things you can imagine.

  27. Autochthony says:
    September 9, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    (probably grated roast squirrels dangley bits, if I look at the label, according to some of our non-English correspondents, possibly correctly – but it does perk me up in the morning!).

    I do think we need to have more studies into this expensive new shade-grown Fairtrade coffee and tea. A lot of things flourish in the shade.

    Well, climate science for one!

  28. Apart from the Dinner & Lunches, they would appear to have divided most of their time between the Library and the Layby

  29. morganovich says: “can’t they just adjust the data until it says ‘weeks’? seems to have worked in the past.”

    First the ad hominems, then the castigation of FOI laws, THEN the alteration of the data. These things must be done in proper form, dontcha know?

    Slabadang says: “…Is England totally corrupt these days ??”

    No more than it was in Sir Walter Ralegh’s day under the first Liz.

    Milwaukee Bob says: “COFFEE?!? You can actually get coffee in England?”

    No, Bob, that is an unsubstantiated rumor, doubtless put into circulation by Big Oil. The latter produce something suspiciously akin to British pseudocoffee; it’s called BTX or dripolene C. British pseudocoffee is not merely hideous; it’s actually insidious. The first sip leaves the sippor incredulous. “Nothing could possibly be as bad as what I just tasted,” he thinks. The sippor then goes on to take several more sips of the stuff, in lingering denial about how bad it could be. It’s every bit as bad as you thought the first time.

    There may be exceptions, though. In 1960, a waitress followed us out the door to enquire, “Didn’t you like our coffee?” We informed her that coffee should never be boiled or anything close to it. Word may be seeping out slowly, if at all.

    Reply: I hope without opening a can of worms that I may note on my last visit to London I spent an inordinate amount of time in an establishment known as “Starbucks”. The coffee there was quite tolerable. I suspect if someone were to try and bring such an establishment to the colonies it might show some modicum of success. ~ ctm

  30. an aussie icon bites the dust! during the recent election campaign in Australia, Ross Garnaut and Nicholas Stern met with the two rural independents, whose conservative constituents are up in arms after the pair gave the Labor govt their support and decided our recent election, claiming “climate change” was one of the deciding factors. last nite ABC reported on Garnaut’s hypocrisy and Andrew Bolt has the details here:

    Garnaut’s dirty secret
    How often we’ve had to endure having Professor Ross Garnaut exaggerate the global warming threat and lecture on our moral duty to do something useless about it?
    But has he just been working off his own guilt?…
    KERRY O’BRIEN, PRESENTER: Perhaps best known as chairman of the Rudd government’s climate change review panel, Ross Garnaut has in recent years urged Australians to take decisive action to reduce carbon pollution in the atmosphere…
    GREGY HOY, REPORTER: …. Lihir Gold Limited, on the island of Lihir off PNG’s north coast, has built one of the world’s biggest goldmines over 15 years under leadership of its founding chairman Professor Ross Garnaut, AO, or Officer of the Order of Australia… Though our requests for pictures and precise figures were simply ignored by the company, each year Lihir is known to dump millions of tonnes of its mine waste and chemically treated metalliferous tailings into the sea; replete with significant traces of cyanide and heavy metals. …
    GREGY HOY: Professor Garnaut also serves as a director of the infamous Ok Tedi gold and copper mine in western PNG ,which continues to discharge 56 million tonnes of metalliferous waste into the nearby river systems each year. …
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/garnauts_dirty_secret/

  31. jorgekafkazar says:
    September 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    I don’t know who made that REPLY, but, come on! do you call that dirty colored water, self-served in a Styrofoam glass coffee?. That’s for cleansing shoes!

  32. Tenuc says:
    September 9, 2010 at 9:44 am

    From D1 Oils website”:-

    “Lord Oxburgh Appointed…… Shell Transport and Trading….
    __________________________
    I found that VERY interesting. Seems “Shell” Transport and Trading was “delisted” in 2008 according the royal dutch shell website when you search for Shell Transport and Trading and the share converted to Royal Dutch Shell plc ‘B’ shares.

    ” 14/05/2008 The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c. (converted to Royal Dutch Shell plc ‘B’ shares) (archive_ – Shell Worldwide)

    This is historic information relating to The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c. which delisted on 19 July 2005.” http://www.search.shell.com

    Yet googling for Shell Transport and Trading you find according to: http://www.business.com/directory/energy_and_environment/oil_and_gas/refining/shell_transport_and_trading_company_plc_the/profile/

    “Website: http://www.shell.com

    Phone: +44 20 7934 5293

    Address:
    London, SE1 7NA
    Company Description
    Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC (The). The Group’s principal activities are the exploration, production and marketing of oil and natural gas, as well as the production of chemicals. The Group has operating companies in more than 100 countries worldwide. The Group’s shares are listed and traded on stock exchanges in several European countries and in the United States. Oil products accounted for 78% of 2004 revenues; chemicals, 10%; exploration & production, 8%; gas & power, 4% and other, nom

    Key People
    Non Executive Chairman Lord Oxburgh
    Managing Director & Chief Financial Officer Peter Voser
    Managing Director Malcolm Brinded
    Secretary Jyoti Munsiff

    A nice reward perhaps??? It sure looks like the resurrected a defunct company just for Lord Oxburgh.

    And speaking of Shell, you also have:
    Climategate e-mail on Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) And Ged Davis who wrote B1

    Here is who Ged Davis is (Shell Oil executive with IPCC connection)

    Talk about a spider web. I laugh myself silly every time I hear a Warmista accuse “deniers” of being funded by Big Oil.

  33. Zeke the Sneak says:
    September 9, 2010 at 1:09 pm
    Please explain that “Fairtrade”, that’s a sophism, as trade being trade, it’s alway fair.

  34. Aw, c’mon, people. Give credit where it’s due. They worked a lot harder applying that whitewash than Tom Sawyer ever did.

  35. further to the ross garnaut post, note one of the rural independents, tony windsor – for whom action on climate change is so important – got a great deal selling his farm to a coal mining company!

    28 Aug: Australian: Independent MP Tony Windsor in league of his own on farm sale
    THE sale of Tony Windsor’s farm to a coalminer delivered the kingmaking MP a windfall about three times greater than nearby farmers who sold to the company.
    Mr Windsor’s family was paid $4.625 million by Werris Creek Coal in February for the sale of 376ha Cintra, south of Tamworth, reaping about $12,300 a hectare…
    Mr Windsor leases back from WCC the property and homestead, which sits about 1km north of the mine…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/independent-mp-tony-windsor-in-league-of-his-own-on-farm-sale/story-fn59niix-1225911091227

  36. Joe Spencer says:
    September 9, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    they would appear to have divided most of their time between the Library and the Layby

    The English Establishment is well know for their proclivity for “pulling it off” in a Layby… preferably when its dark… perhaps thats why so many think this is a whitewash… especially as the hand written draft was a bit shaky.

    Personally, I think Hogwash is a far more appropriate term.
    Hogwash has two meanings: 1) pig swill: 2) a slang for nonsense
    Both seem appropriate in this context… and far more English.

    ~ ctm
    on my last visit to London I spent an inordinate amount of time in an establishment known as “Starbucks”. The coffee there was quite tolerable.

    Personally, I can’t tell the difference between Starbucks and Whitewash… you have to travel across the English Channel to get a good cup of coffee :-)

  37. Don’t start about coffee and include the term “Starbucks” in the same sentence.
    Coffee is supposed to be : black, strong and made of grinded coffee beans and hot water.
    Anything else is like an IPCC report; A luke warm extract of the real thing.

  38. Enneagram says:
    September 9, 2010 at 1:57 pm
    Please explain that “Fairtrade”, that’s a sophism, as trade being trade, it’s alway fair.

    Absolutely, I see your point. The choice of the term “Fairtrade” should tell you that something very very shadey is going on.

    For one, they pay coffee farmers to replant with native trees, citing global warming studies that show their future coffee crops will fail anyway. Result: less coffee grown

    For another, they insist that shade grown coffee is environmentally a better practice.
    “[O]ver the past 30 years new sun tolerant trees have been developed to yield higher production rates. As a result, sun tolerant trees can produce three times more coffee than a shade bush in a year…” Result: less coffee grown

    For another, other things grown in the shade may get in the coffee, as Autochthony pointed out with his “grated roast squirrels dangley bits” theory.

  39. @ ctm on Starbucks. Assuming you can bear up under richer coffees, you have to try the Marble Mocha Macchaito, preferably with extra foam (which absolutely makes the taste flavor) and mocha drizzle topping (stir with wooden stick before drinking to mix the slug of coffee that will sit in the center). If made correctly the microfoam will last until the entire drink is gone. I’ve have only found one place out of 6 in this city that can make it properly and that is at a Target Starbucks.

  40. BFL says:
    September 9, 2010 at 3:23 pm
    Starbucks…. Marble Mocha Macchaito… with extra foam…. mocha drizzle topping… mix the slug… microfoam.

    Sounds like a recipe for a Polystyrene based Pesticide … I rest my case milord….

    On second thoughts it sounds perfect for the 10.45-11.00 am Coffee served in CRU library session provided it was served hot – just like CRU serves up its numbers….

  41. I will leave ALL coffee comments aside.

    To the issue at hand. As I read the very intimidating, almost painful schedule and multiple interviews and – almost tortuous grilling sessions by the Spanish Inquisition – schedule I see only the following times when the committee actually was in the same room as Dr Jones:
    \
    Apr 7
    – 30 minute presentation (propaganda!) presented BY Dr Jones TO the committee investigating his methods and performance and scientific process.
    – 30 minute (maybe!) question and answer period after the Jones propaganda.
    (Later that day)
    -60 minute (maybe!) potential followup meeting with Dr Jones (from 3:30 – 4:30 pm)
    Apr 8
    – 90 minute meeting with Dr Jones. (from 9:15 to 10:45)

    Therefore, the entire coverup (er, whitewash) is based on nothing more than 2 hours scheduled meetings with Dr Jones, plus one more hour in a “potential” meeting with him for 60 minutes.

    Granted, it is more than enough to coverup Dr Jones’ bad science and false claims.

    But would it be enough to even begin discovering “bad science” and false methods?

  42. Given how little time was actually spent doing any real ‘work’ – one must conclude that tipex grade whitewash must have been used – i.e. fast drying.

    An utter joke, unfortunately at all our collective expense.

    BTW Last time I was there the Sainsbury Centre actually did quite a good pot of Tea with cake.

  43. “Not a witch hunt at all, but a humorous and satirical look at how poorly conducted this investigation was. What’s the point of doing a half assed job”

    Half assed? It’s not even 1/100th assed.

    I thought this investigation was poor. It is far worse than I thought.

    It appears from this that the investigators and the accused were colluding to come up with how to present a cover-up as an investigation.

  44. Oh, come on, everyone…
    The science is ‘settled’..!
    There is no need for any sort of investigation – apart from a token one like this.
    Move along now – nothing to see here…

  45. Starbucks coffee is awful, overpriced gnats pee. American coffee in general is not too great, and while in the 60s British coffe was even worse, it’s possible nowadays to find good coffee. But cream? What the hell do Americans do with the stuff we use to make cream. There just is no concept in the US of proper cream. Double cream is unheard of, and clotted cream undreamt of. Just half and half and squirty fake stuff.

    Don’t get me started on bacon.

  46. The English have a long history of hiring poachers as gamekeepers as this practice ensures gamekeepers are expert in all the nefarious tricks poachers may employ. The Oxborough Method is a mere variation of that time-honoured tradition in that the most desirable people to chair enquiries which have the potential to embarass the Establishment have the largest vested interest in an outcome that exonerates the guilty and proves there was never anything to see anyway and curious bystanders should just move along promptly. A knighthood or a peerage is an additional assett for the appointee as it is sure to impress the presumably vacuous and gullible scribes who will faithfully avoid reporting the proceedings of such enquiries. Calling such enquiries a whitewash puts too nice a connotation upon the process and conjures up images of the shrewd and funny Huck Finn; the reality is much more serious in that a privileged elite indulges in shameful deceits and totally unethical practices to protect their positions and reputations. That so-called journalists fail to see, hear or say anything about this is equally unprincipled.

  47. The English have a long history of hiring poachers as gamekeepers as this practice ensures gamekeepers are expert in all the nefarious tricks poachers may employ.
    The Oxborough Method is a mere variation of that time-honoured tradition in that the most desirable people to chair enquiries which have the potential to embarass
    the Establishment have the largest vested interest in an outcome that exonerates
    the guilty and proves there was never anything to see anyway and curious bystanders should just move along promptly. A knighthood or a peerage is an additional assett for the appointee as it is sure to impress the presumably vacuous and gullible scribes who will faithfully avoid reporting the proceedings of such enquiries.

    Calling such enquiries a whitewash puts too nice a connotation upon the process and conjures up images of the shrewd and funny Huck Finn; the reality is much more serious in that a privileged elite indulges in shameful deceits and totally unethical practices to protect their positions and reputations. That so-called journalists in the mainstream media fail to see, hear or say anything about this is equally unprincipled.

  48. The Establishment here in England have a tradition of ensuring that it is protected from the slings and arrows of the real world at all times. Oxborough is merely another player on a long and revolving stage where form and appearance is everything and facts become mere irrelevant ephemera. A knighthood or a peerage are further handy props for maintaining an illusion of veracity and ethical behaviour, but these are merely part of the tradition and very useful for reminding so-called journalists in the pay of the Establishment of their assigned role in this self-perpetuating charade.

  49. How did they manage to take two days..??

    Lord Oxburgh: ‘Oh, hello, Phil – Oxburgh here. Look – I’ve got to do this report thingy. Tell me – you didn’t do anything wrong, did you..?’
    Phil Jones: ‘Absolutely not..’
    Lord Oxburgh: ‘Well – there you are, then. Job done. Cheerio – keep up the good work – Charles is on your side, y’know – he can’t understand how these ruddy sceptics have – what’s it called – an OPINION..!’

  50. Sorry about the double post – the first one got lost somewhere, and when I couldn’t find I decided to redo but on a slightly different tack – humble apologies for my impatience.
    Alexander K

  51. Diabolically clever though. How else to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear? While many (climateAudit, WattsUpWithThat, etc.) skeptical sites see through the very thin veneer, most of the rest of the world is treated to the whitewash!

    So what is a scandal, becomes a day in the park. The AGW proponents now have the results of an “investigation” that shows all is ok, nothing to see here, move along.

  52. The way I read the schedule, it looks like most of the discussion time included CRU members since only one 60 minute spot was marked “panel private”. Please note that this “discussion” time is somehow different from meetings with specific CRU members so where they strategy discussions or what?

    If WordPress allows it, I’m including a pie chart (since pie goes well with coffee!) breaking down the minutes spent in different activities based on the schedule provided in the link above. Please note that I included the “working dinner” as it’s own slice and assumed it was 90 minutes since nothing was scheduled after it so I don’t know how long it went and I left out the taxi time. By my calculations, they spent 750 minutes, or 12.5 hours in discussions (excluding meals and coffee time other than the “working dinner”).

    –Steve

  53. Hmmm, since WordPress didn’t seem to like my html in the previous post, let me try providing this link to the graphic of the time spent:

    Typo correction above: “…so where were they strategy discussions or what?”

  54. @stevenlibby

    Of course that’s the intended schedule. Now my experience of such gatherings tells me they would start at least 15 minutes late, if not more. There would be some time going over material that was already covered for people who were not paying attention/texting/asleep/left the room to take a call/arrived late (yes, late for a meeting that started late). Then you wrap up 5 to 10 minutes before the scheduled end of the session so people can visit the bathroom/wakeup.

  55. ZT says: September 9, 2010 at 11:18 am
    “This is why time spent at the UEA is held in such high esteem worldwide.”

    Many years ago I used to visit the campus regularly to maintain and repair the payphones. One day it was discovered that some wag in the machine shop had been knocking out large quantities of fake 10 pence coins. The university registry was responsible for emptying the cash boxes, and lost quite a bit of money as a result…

  56. Steve Mc is shredding Oxburgh’s testimony to the UK parliamnetary committee. as usual, the cover-up is worse than the original sin.

  57. Paul Ehrlich’s ripest scare talk points to task — including his claim that the ocean’s would die of DDT poisoning by 1979.

    Huxley, you got a source on that I can use to look it up?

  58. We take this seriously. Do Muir Russell, Oxburgh, and others of their peculiarly dishonest and lazy mindset believe that acting in bad faith, under false pretenses, is somehow justified as means-before-ends in Warmists’ cause? Do they truly fail to realize that droplets of exposure wear away the most adamant elitist stone?

    As mutual admirers, these peculating dirigistes have never yet faced accountable responsibility… but in light of what’s at stake –by no exaggeration, the fate of post-Enlightenment industrial/technological civilization as a whole– we’d like to think that soon enough a sickeningly abused and denigrated citizenry will take Climate Cultist’s mindless drivel for the clear and pressing danger that it is.

  59. Golly, from reading the article above, I got the impression that the panel took two days to do their work.

    “The Panel worked by examining representative publications by members of the Unit and subsequently by making two visits to the University and interviewing and questioning members of the Unit.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

    The schedule above is only of the days the assessment team visited the University to interview Jones et al.

    The purpose of the review was to determine the integrity of CRU’s research (rather than assessing whether or not the research was ‘correct’).

    So they spent some time assessing the material before quizzing CRU members. I’d say that was the right order in which to do things. Get a view independent of whatever CRU says, and then approach CRU with questions. Wouldn’t we rather they spent more time getting their own apprehension of the situation so that they could direct their questions with a solid background? For the remit of the probe, 2 days questioning seems enough.

  60. barry, you don’t think the committee should have interviewed any of the critics of CRU? Perhaps Doug Keenan who wrote a lengthy charge against Phil Jones? Does a judge only listen to the defense and never the prosecution? Doesn’t it make sense to listen to both sides?

  61. barry, you don’t think the committee should have interviewed any of the critics of CRU?

    Perhaps, but that’s a different point to the one I was making. Don’t you think it a little curly that the post above leads one to the impression the whole review lasted 2 days?

  62. Actually, this is all a bit serious.
    Pressed for time as parliamentary policy-makers probably are, they are likely to take the Oxburgh Report (I use the word report in its loosest sense) at face value; conclude that everything is hunky-dory in the field of climate change, so ‘On we go, chaps, with our loony policies and tax plans’..
    Are they EVER going to listen to us..??

  63. Are they EVER going to listen to us..??

    You mean apart from Steve McIntyre’s papers on Mann’s work that appeared in the IPCC report, the congressional hearings that came from those papers, the Wegman Report, the Academy of Sciences review of the issue, the investigations following ‘climategate’, which was a result of the emails being disseminated to the public via a skeptical website, with one of the investigations taking testimony from skeptics including Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (who avowedly favours contrarian climate papers), Douglas Keenan, Benny Peiser, Steve Mosher and Warwick Hughes, and the press quoting Anthony Watts, McIntyre and other climate skeptics on issues including climategate, media on IPCC errors, The Great Global Warming Swindle, government hearings given to Monckton and others, as well as the studies published by skeptics in science (and not-so-science) journals?

    Or are you thinking of a different ‘us’, maybe?

  64. Or maybe I don’t understand who ‘they’ are, and what ‘listening to’ really means.

    Perhaps a better question would be, “When will ‘they’ admit that ‘we’ are right?”

  65. Ok, Barry – perhaps I should have been more specific, as you say, despite your comprehensive list of reports, critiques and documentation: ‘Will they ever admit that we are right..?’

  66. Reading the report (thanks, Barry) it seems to me that you’ve got this tiny group, none of whom are statisticians, with chaotic internal procedures, trying to make sense of a mass of data, coming to conclusions which may or may not be accurate or relevant, to which politicians promptly attach huge importance and decide massive policy decisions affecting the whole population of the Western world.
    Anyone else see it that way..?

  67. Well, I see it this way,

    you’ve got this tiny group who have studied statistics but is not their primary skill, who work with intermittently with statisticians but not deeply enough, trying to make sense of a mass of problematic data, coming to conclusions which are tentative, to which skeptics, partly enabled by bad media coverage of the issues, reassign more absolute certainty in order to attack that straw man, while politicians make noises in agreement with the scientists without legislating any kind of ‘massive’ policy decisions, but rather dragging their heels. Those few nations around the world who have bedded down some policy and are implementing it are no worse off economically for it.

    Whether an alarming alarmist or a scathing skeptic, exaggerations, uncertainty pitted as absolutes, acrimony and binary thinking on climate change is noise pollution and flag-waving. It takes mental fortitude to ignore all that and patience to discern whatever the truth is, with all its nuance and degrees of likelihood.

    In the end, there will be no truth granular enough to suit some people. The entire concern is rooted in risk management, and no government policy managing risk is based on perfect understanding. For a domestic example, we insure our homes against fire on very remote odds. And in my country, the government requires us to take out third-party injury car insurance, which is quite sensible.

  68. Barry – you’re right about governments’ attitude to risk management – and they use this argument to excuse/explain their attitude to this subject. I e-mailed the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (ha..!) attaching Mclean’s critique of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report – and their response included the statement to the effect that they could not ignore the ‘risk’ of man-made climate change – and therefore were legisllating for a ‘low carbon’ future. You see..? They are saying: ‘You wouldn’t want us to take any risks with your children’s and your grandchildren’s future, would you..?’ Implying that you would be a reckless human being if you were to take the attitude: ‘It ain’t going to happen (catastrophic global warming) – so let’s ignore it’.
    Mind you – they are being pretty reckless with that other part of their remit – energy security – DON’T get me started on wind farms..!

Comments are closed.