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.
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?
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..??
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?
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?”
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..?’
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..?
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.
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..!