How independent can one be?
Last December (2009) after files and emails were supposedly leaked (according to some) or hacked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and published online for the world to read, it was decided that an Independent Review would be necessary, to ascertain if there is any evidence of data manipulation and fraud, being perpetrated in the scientific community who are working towards proving the theory of (AGW) Man Made Climate Change.
A Review Committee, to be known as The Independent Climate Change Email Review, (ICCER) has been set up and is to be chaired by Sir Muir Russell KCB FRSE. According to the information posted at the website set up to keep the public up to date with what is happening with this review, there are four other persons listed as co-workers in trying to get to the ‘truth’ of the matter.
Other members of the team are: Professor Peter Clarke, Professor Geoffrey Boulton, Dr Philip Campbell, Professor Jim Norton, and David Eyton.
Professor Geoffrey Boulton is replacing Dr. Philip Campbell, who has already resigned his place, because he could not be considered ‘neutral’ on this ‘independent committee’.
Bishop Hill (blog) has some serious doubts if Professor Boulton himself can be considered ‘neutral’ It is noted: Professor Boulton….
* spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
* works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team
* says the argument over climate change is over
* tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change
* believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050
* signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity
* could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger
* is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate.
Just how many of these eminent people are puppets on a string?
The Review was called for and is being funded by the University of East Anglia, (UEA) but its work and findings are wholly independent.
This is a very difficult concept for me to accept. It reminds me of the saying about Dracula being in charge of the Blood Bank!
The UAE is paying for this review, but is going to remain totally uninvolved! Especially since it is at the centre of the Climategate Crisis.
The members of the Review Committee will be independent and of course, will have no preconceived notions about climate change. No opinions will have been expressed, they will be totally unbiased!
It is to be noted that:
All Evidence and submissions to the Review will be published on this page. This means that, if you choose to make a submission, it will be possible for the public to see that you or your organization has done so – though the Review will not publish postal or email addresses, or telephone contact details. The team will publish submissions in full accordance with the Data Protection Act.
Now this seems open and above board, where all submissions are to be put up on the website so that everyone, even those who dissent will have a voice which will be heard. It means of course that all NON Warmists, will need to get pen to paper, fingers to keyboards exceedingly quickly, as the closing date for submissions is fast approaching.
Except where perhaps ‘legal issues’ get in the way, the Committee hopes to have all information up in the public arena promptly.
The Review team have set out the specific allegations it intends to investigate in the Issues for Examination Document:Issues for Examination, February 2010
The Review team issued a call for submissions on 11 February 2010, and expects to receive submissions from UEA and the public by the end of February. These responses will require analysis and there may be follow-up questions and/or interviews. The team expects to have at least preliminary conclusions by spring 2010.
This is not of course the first enquiry to be held over the Climategate Affair. Steve McIntyre has posted some initial thoughts on the Penn State inquiry into Michael Mann’s conduct as revealed by the Climategate emails and, as expected, the inquiry has been cursory and biased and has broken its own rules.
Dare one say ‘whitewashed’?
Lets hope for the sake of science itself, that this review, investigation, is truly open, honest, credible, above board, and not held down in the Blood Bank with Dracula presiding. Personally I have my doubts – skeptic that I am.
Just ME in T says:
I truly believe there are many real scientists out there, who do not want to be embroiled in politics. Who have tried and had their papers rejected, so that we do not have empirical evidence, as presented by them, of their research, in peer reviewed journals.
This one is to be highly commended…… join me please in applauding HENKE TENNEKES.
Read the article, then read the paper…….. and keep applauding please.
We have to keep on top of this, not allowing it to slip conveniently from view.
Till next time, stay safe and keep praying for our politicians……. we need all the help we can get.
Post Script: from Nigel Lawson
With regard to the panel’s membership, climate change skeptic Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and who now heads up the Global Warming Policy Foundation in Britain, issued this statement:
As the first person to call for an independent inquiry into ‘climategate’, I regret that what has been announced today is defective in a number of ways. The inquiry will wholly lack transparency, with the hearings held in private, and no transcripts to be published.
The terms of reference, while better than nothing, are inadequate in a number of ways, not least the failure to include the question of the efforts made by CRU scientists to prevent the publication of papers by dissenting scientists and others, contrary to the canons of scientific integrity. And the objectivity and independence of the inquiry is seriously called into question by the composition of Sir Muir Russell’s team, in particular the Editor in Chief of Nature, who has already published an editorial on the matter strongly supportive of the CRU scientists and accusing their critics of being ‘paranoid’
We will, of course, suspend final judgment until we see the report of the inquiry.