the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Some of The Edited Part from the Guardian Panel

Posted by Jeff Id on July 16, 2010

As always they only clip the fun stuff.  Doug Keenan’s opening remarks in pdf . h/t Barry Woods and Bishop Hill.  Warning, straight talk.

b100714[1]

15 Responses to “Some of The Edited Part from the Guardian Panel”

  1. kim said

    Keen on, Doug Keenan;
    Howl your grief over the pale.
    For whom the bell tolls.
    =========

  2. Barry Woods said

    to be fair any newspaper, whatever political persuasion, would probably have edited it out on legal advice. Especially what he said later on! Even though I was agreeing with it!

  3. I thank you, Jeff, for providing this edited part of the Guardian material and I thank you, Doug Keenan, for your concise summary of the issues.

    Vague, politically-correct investigations of misconduct are as useless as vague, politically-correct investigations of the causes of climate change!

    Frank and honest appraisals like these are the only way confidence can be restored in a group caught cheating experimental data and issuing misleading or evasive reports to the tax-paying public.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  4. Brian H said

    Never has fraud gone after as big a payoff as in Climate Science. Institutionalized control of the world’s energy budgets? More than ethics panels are needed for this fight.

  5. j ferguson said

    It seems remarkable that on the right side of the pond, hosts can feel threatened in providing a forum for statements of opinion that someone may find libelous. With this sort of inhibition on public speech, one wonders how you guys get anything done.

  6. Stilgar said

    For example, if a coin was flipped ten times and came up Heads every time, that would be called “significant”.

    I thought that was the gambler’s fallacy (if you flip a coin, it is a 50-50 chance of heads v tails, if 10 flips ends up with 10 heads, what is the chance of the 11th flip being heads… 50-50)? Or am I missing something?

  7. reid simpson said

    Stilgar: different question. Odds of 10 heads in a row is 1/2 raised to 10. Odds of the eleventh flip is 50/50 as you remember.

  8. Alan McIntire said

    The examples Keenan gave in reference to Phil Jones imply that Jones is incompetent rather than acting fraudulently. To prove fraud, Keenan would have to show that knew the significance of statistical testing, and how to conduct such a test.

  9. Brian H said

    No, if you get 10 heads in a row the odds are the coin is weighted and there’s chicanery going on. In which case the true odds about 1:0 that it will be heads again.

    OTOH, it will happen by chance once in about 1000 times. Then the odds are 50:50 next flip will be another heads.

  10. Dave L said

    “Some parts of the debate have been edited out for legal reasons”

    Keenan made his comments in a public forum sponsored by the Guardian, and the Guardian charged admission for the event. A few hundred people attended the event, and there were promises of video and audio recordings. Possibly there were even attendees with recording devices. Had the event been coordinated properly, it could easily have been shown on live TV. My point is this: What purpose does editing serve in this case? The latter does not erase what transpired, so I do not see how there can be a legal issue associated with making an audio record available for general public dissemination. I think the issue is either (A) “censorship” because Keenan hit a few home runs and the Guardian was attempting to save face in front of its pro AGW audience, or (B) it was edited out because of a demand by EAU to the Guardian. EAU controlled both the Oxburgh and the Muir Russell Inquiries; perhaps Davies was on the Panel as a “monitor” to look out for the best interests of EAU.

  11. Brian H said

    It’s my impression that the libel laws in the UK are egregious, and that truth is no defense against them. So the “legal” reasons might be fear of lawfare.

  12. Geoff Sherrington said

    Where is balance, when Doug Keenan is censored; yet this example of treason becomes a policy for Australian negotiators?

    Part of draft for Copenhagen, such as FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 of 15 September 2009, that contains inter alia –

    38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

    (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

    (b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows:
    (a) an Adaptation window, (
    (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components,
    (c) a Technology window;
    (d) a Mitigation window; and
    (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

    (c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include:
    (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation;
    (b) a long-term REDD process;
    (c) a short-term technology action plan;
    (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and
    (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.

    Please see http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf for the lengthy papers.

    The point is, this country was prepared to have other countries fine it if it did not give away enough money to the list of the World Government of Global Warming. That, to me, is criminal.

  13. Tlaloc said

    “The examples Keenan gave in reference to Phil Jones imply…”

    1188557698.txt and 1241415427.txt might, or then again might not, be relevant.

  14. Barry Woods said

    US halts funds for climate unit – pg3 – Sunday Times – 18th July 2010.

    The Times website has gone behind a paywall…..so,

    “The Americal Government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last Novembers’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.

    The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work asembling a database of global temperatures…

    it continues…

    “The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the (Muir Russell) report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.”

    ——————————————

    Perhaps someone in the USA could advice the DoE of the many and varied criticisms of the Muir Russell review. Not least that it was a total whitewash, documented at Climate Audit.

    As outlined by Steve Mcintyre at the Guardian debate on climategate in London on Wednesday the 14th July 2010, that Muir Russell had only met with Phil Jones (head of unit) before the panel had been formed and the inquiry started. The Times correspondent asked Trevor Davis (UEA) to confirm whether this wa sthe case, and Trevor Davis, eventually said Phil Jones met Muir Russell in january.. The panel convened in February..

    Lots of detail about the Muir Russell review failings at, Climate Audit..

    Another criticism being, Muir Russell had not EVEN contacted Steve Mcintyre, or a number of the other critics, let alone interviewed any of the critics of CRU discussed many times in the emails, whose complaints about data openess led to Illegal (in face of FOI request) deleteions of emails relating to IPCC AR4…

    These included senior AMERICAN scientists, so presumably funding for the AMERICAN scientist should be looked at by the DoE’s peer review panel as well.

    Perhaps the DoE should request all correspondence from the American scientists that were communicating and working with CRU scientists, as both sets of scientists were co-authors and worked closely in the same ‘climate’ field and both very involved in the IPCC process.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/muir-russell-skipped-jones-interviews/

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/10/bob-denton-on-muir-russell/

    and more articles about Muir Russell at Climate Audit

  15. Brian H said

    If the DoE now abjures the source of the “scientific consensus” that justified its inane ruling that CO2 was a pollutant, dare we hope all the hot air will exit the Cap-‘n-Tax balloon?

    Could a needle of sanity actually be aimed at Climate Fraud?

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: