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.
The proles are happy if we can get our hands on a Dunkin Donuts ‘regular’. 🙂
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?
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.
Compliments on the incredible investigative journalism, btw.
As a friend of mine says “it’s tough at the top”
“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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..!’
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
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=327#more-327
Yesterday’s parliamentary committee proceedings.
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.
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
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:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4084/4977391866_ba5d227e73.jpg
Typo correction above: “…so
wherewere they strategy discussions or what?”@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.
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…
Steve Mc is shredding Oxburgh’s testimony to the UK parliamnetary committee. as usual, the cover-up is worse than the original sin.
Huxley, you got a source on that I can use to look it up?
thay all need a holiday after all that work
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.
Golly, from reading the article above, I got the impression that the panel took two days to do their work.
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.
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?