the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Rubber Stamp

Posted by Jeff Id on February 11, 2010

Nature editor resigned from the unbiased and independent investigation of CRU.  Putting Phil Campbell (editor of Nature)on the CRU investigation panel was ridiculous from the beginning as he’s made his opinions known well before the “investigation”.   The panel bills itself as:

The independent Review is being led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE.

Compare the first and second Phil Campbell quotes in bold below.

// In an interview last year with Chinese State Radio, enquiry panel member Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature said: “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.

Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.

“As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need to for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails.

It’s just another scientists playing politician and despite his necessary resignation, the nomination of this polyscientician shows the bias being intentionally built into the committee. This committee doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in you know where of an unbiased review.

Maybe they should take the associated press’s lead and lock five know-nothing left-biased reporters in a room for 8 hours a day and see what they think of the emails.

Editor of Nature forced to resign from climate review panel – WUWT

Bishop hill

The Team That Can’t Shoot Straight Climate Audit

18 Responses to “Rubber Stamp”

  1. Chris S said

    Expect to see him replaced by an independent, free thinker. Someone like William Connolly. Just to show there is no bias or preconception;)

    “Wholly independent” my arse.

  2. JAE said

    LOL. Maybe Nature has finally understood that it’s reputation is on the line here. (Actually, it’s way below the line for me).

  3. FTM said

    ““Wholly independent” my arse”

    They do not care. Another participant is a British Petroleum flak. Google him.

    Might as well pull one from the WWF or Pechauri’s outfits. All tied into gaming global warming for profits.

  4. Jeff Id said

    And Jesus Christ, when did China State radio become a source of news?!!!

  5. […] How humans deal with and survive the cold, Whitewashgate, […]

  6. Phillip Bratby said

    I don’t think these people know the internet exists or what power it endows on ordinary citizens. They cannot conceive that what they say in a minor China interview won’t be discovered by others and used in evidence against them later. The trouble for them is that they live in their own cosy little world with their like-minded chums and have been shielded from the realities of the real world. The public scrutiny is on.

  7. Peter of Sydney said

    Imagine if and when the global temperatures climb significantly again. The AGW scam will then have a boost and may very well and truly win the debate. That’s why we need to get the leaders of the AGW scam into court, find them guilty and put them behind bars. Otherwise, the only hope of preventing them winning is to have a mini ice age, which is not very likely.

  8. michel said

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/the-real-climate-mccarthy/#comments

    This is another extraordinary locus classicus showing how the debate on this topic is becoming more and more violent and closed minded in rhetoric (not simply in the AGW movement by the way, though this is mostly an example of that). One has to pinch oneself on reflecting that this is nominally about a simple scientific question: the effects on global climate of a doubling of CO2 ppm.

    It has quite a lot in common with the Dreyfus case, socially speaking, in which as you may recall, French society lined up in two opposing sides, one side Catholic, monarchist, nationalistic, and incorporating into this world view the apparently irrelevant belief that Dreyfus was guilty of spying, the other, anti clerical, democratic, populist, liberal, and incorporating into this world view the apparently irrelevant belief that Dreyfus was innocent.

    In the link its fascinating to read some of the wilder insanities, the view for instance that if you read an AGW blog, your Internet connexion may be dropped. That you may be at risk of assassination from some crazed Latin American style military intervention if you are pro AGW. Read Ray Ladbury for an example of a mind going over the edge with its eyes tight shut.

    It is perfectly extraordinary, and a very disquieting sight. It is so extraordinary as a social phenomenon that I am driven to wondering whether this could be related to the huge and growing consumption of SSRIs and other psychoactive drugs in America. The lead wine bottles of Western culture. What does large scale SSRI consumption do to styles of argument and abstract reasoning? Don’t know, but something is going radically wrong with it in the US.

  9. j ferguson said

    “Dr Campbell has now withdrawn his membership of the panel, telling Channel 4 News: “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.”

    Well the guy is part of the “media”. What would you expect?

    He may now be realizing that he could have had a more accurate shot at the leaks had he read here, at Lucia’s, or CA, rather than reading it in print, or (gasp) watching the telly, or perhaps reading “Nature”.

  10. PhilJourdan said

    JeffId #4: When did Russian Television become a source?

    About the same time I would think.

  11. Peter B said

    “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”

    “I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks.”

    Editor of Nature, but it did not occur to him to actually read the e-mails himself before just parroting what the media said about them as if that was the ultimate truth.

    That explains a lot.

  12. Hal said

    Hi Jeff

    RC just highlighted a Nature article
    “Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate”

    LEAD PARAGRAPH: The processes controlling the carbon flux and carbon storage of the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial biosphere are temperature sensitive and are likely to provide a positive feedback leading to amplified anthropogenic warming.

    Interestingly, in the RC comments (29) the 9 temperature reconstructions used were:

    29
    Deech56 says:
    6 February 2010 at 6:14 PM

    RE Don Shor

    Can someone who has a subscription to Nature identify the data sets shown in the temperature anomaly chart in Figure 1?

    Don, it turns out that the reconstructions are in the SI, which is freely available. Of course, without the article, you would not have known that.😉

    Figure S1 shows: Jones 1998, Briffa 2000, MannJones 2003, Moberg 2005, D’Arrigo 2006, Hegerl 2007, Frank 2007, Juckes 2007, Mann 2008.

    ————
    RC said:
    “The varying data sources include the nine T reconstructions (Fig 1), while the varying methods include things like the statistical smoothing method, and the time intervals used to both calibrate the proxy T record against the instrumental record, and to estimate gamma.”

    The hockeystick keeps getting revived.

    Hal

  13. ZT said

    Looks like review team member Boulton is quite “motivated” by warming (in contradiction to the review team’s FAQ: ‘Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science? No.’)

    This is a quote from a talk he gave in 2008:

    ‘Calculations by glaciologists now suggest that by 2050 most of the Himalayan glaciers will have gone and the impact on dry season flow of those great rivers will be dramatic in the extreme.’

    See: http://www.gcph.co.uk/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,385/

    Even Pachauri has admitted that this is utterly false.

  14. FTM said

    Michel says,

    Don’t know, but something is going radically wrong with it in the US.

    Interesting insight. Americans are resistant because cap and trade is an American-style financial scam. Therefore Americans have better “spidey-sense” about it than Europeans. Global warming is sold in America in connection with cap and trade. On the down side, a lot of Americans tend to have a strange belief that a “businessman” is a truthteller and says what is in the national and consumer’s interest, rather than his own. That is why you will see little alarm in America that a factotum of BP is on the panel, although it should be the most alarming appointment.

    The AGW side is much like a religion’s progress, with faith, heretics, doubts, schisms. Also like strict Marxism. The foundational dodgy science of near everything for them is Ricardo’s Labor Theory of Value, for AGW the Arhenius’ Theory of Positive Feedbacks.

  15. PhilJourdan said

    FTM,

    On the down side, a lot of Americans tend to have a strange belief that a “businessman” is a truthteller and says what is in the national and consumer’s interest, rather than his own.

    It is not that Americans believe thata “businessman” is a “truthteller”, only that they expect them to lie less than the government does (which is virtually all the time). So when forced to choose between Government and Business, they choose the lesser of 2 evils.

  16. Dr. Robert said

    Jeff, I’m taking this opportunity to spam your blog with an advertisement. I’ve just released a book that challenges the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. It is available in softcover and Kindle formats.

    Information here:

    http://www.theclimateconspiracy.com/?p=462

    (I’ll be more than happy to send you a copy to read, laugh at, or burn in this cold winter!)

    Thank you
    Dr. Robert

  17. FTM said

    PhilJ,

    Many other Americans believe that way too!

    I may point out here that BP is not just any business, but one of the leaders of, and leveraged in, global warming investments and schemes and competition with other energy giants less invested in natural gas and so on. Not only will the BP guy be unfair, he likely has a fiduciary obligation to be unfair. What, he’s going to say the science is not settled? That may crash BP stock prices.

  18. Ruhroh said

    Hey Jeff,

    Check out;

    http://www.doczero.org/2010/02/resolving-the-global-warming-fraud/

    RR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: