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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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…
“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.