the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Move Along Folks

Posted by Jeff Id on September 16, 2010

Steve McIntyre got an answer as to who chose the papers to review for the Oxburgh report — Turns out it was Trevor Davies.

He’s got a gorgeous quote up from Oxburgh himself trying to explain that the small detail of which papers needed to be reivewed as representitive of UEA work slipped his otherwise razor sharp attention.

Q – Right. Can you tell us how did you choose the 11 publications?
Ox- We didn’t choose the 11 publications. They were basically what… We needed something that would be provide a pretty good introduction to work of the unit as it had evolved over the years. The publications were suggested to us came via the university and by the royal society, I believe. We feel ..let me just emphasize..they were just a start… because all of us were novices in this area, we all felt that they were a very good introduction – we moved on. We looked at other publications… we asked for raw materials, things of that kind. The press made quite a meal out of the choice of publications. For anyone on the panel, this all seems over the top. It didn’t have that significance.
Q – there are two things that arise out of that. It was a small unit. Are you saying that Jones, the subject of the investigation, chose the papers that were to be investigated… and that it wasn’t the panel or royal Society?
Ox – No suggestion Jones chose them,
Q – Where did they come from?
Ox- I believe they came … I suspect that that the […] involved was Professor Liss who was acting head of the unit who’d been brought in from outside the unit…he’s been an chemical oceanographer who is broadly interested in area. he in consultation with people with royal society and maybe others outside the unit who had some familiarity.
Q -So the list did not come from the unit – you’Re absolutely categorical ?
Ox – Well I cant
Q – So the list did not come from CRU?
Ox – I can’t prove a negative. There’s absolutely no indication that it did.
Q – Your publicity said that it came from royal society. The Panel given list before royal society asked.
Ox – I… Not as far as I know. You Might be right but I don’t believe so. No certainly I don’t think that can be true.

Gawd this is funny, it turns out that Trevor Davies was picked to choose the papers which might clear up any conceivable problems in the UEA emails AKA climategate.  The boys set up a ‘review committee’ on UEA honesty and asked the ex UEA team to provide the data for the review while simultaneously ignoring any information from critics.

At the time of “hide the decline” Davies, was none other than the Dean of the School of Environmental Sciences of the UEA.  The big dog, the man in charge.

From email  – 925823304.txt

Professor Trevor D. Davies
Dean, School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom

It is really funny to see the lengths they went to just to say — Climate Science Exonerated!!

IMHO, Governments and institutions are like children. Sometimes they need to learn to admit failure and change behavior.

16 Responses to “Move Along Folks”

  1. KevinUK said

    Jeff,

    I’m racking my brain somewhat to try and recall where exactly (most likely one of the threads on ClimateAudit) I rea dit but I seem to recall that Trevor Davies was rumoured to be the source of the 11 papers reviewed by the Oxburgh Inquiry quite some time OK? I seemed to remember not being surprised by this rumour at the time, given Trevor Davies personal involvement with CRU around the time of the ‘hide the decline’ email as you have now also pointed out.

    Oxburgh really is a piece of work isn’t he? I don’t believe for one minute that he doesn’t already know this and that his request to seek support from the Royal Society to back up the choice of the 11 papers and his subsequent attempt at pretending to not know what has gone on IMO is clear evidence of collusion. I suspect Graham Stringer of the UK HoC’s S&T committee also knows this and I just hope that he is prepared to stick his neck out and ensure that this is all eventually brought to light.

  2. Brian H said

    It will in future be known as “The Oxburg Incident“!

  3. Brian H said

    “Dear fox, please investigate whether these chickens were killed by a fox. Here, just let me get these bloody feathers out of your way ….”

  4. MikeH said

    See that small spot over there? Yes, that spot over there! That spot where there’s no whitewash! Oh for goodness sake, give me the brush and let me paint over it. Ah, look at that! Now that looks so much better. Wow, that looks great. What a fine job we did old chap!

  5. mrpkw said

    # 3
    My take on it……..

    AGW supporting officer: “What’s all this then? Did you do it?”
    AGW fraud suspects : “No”
    AGW supporting officer:”Well, that’s all cleared up then.”

  6. stan said

    The questions of who chose the list and what papers made the list are really only interesting to the extent that the answers reveal two things — dishonesty and incompetence. Obviously, a competent group of whitewashers could have meticulously interviewed every critic, read every paper, e-mail, and computer file, and generally gone through the motions of a quality investigation before producing a whitewash. If they had, we’d still be screaming whitewash because the e-mails, papers, and computer files do not need a committee to be understood.

    Obviously, the incompetence and dishonesty of the inquiries make it all a lot more fun. And appropriately representative of the whole affair, because incompetence and dishonesty are the hallmarks of the activities that Jones and company have been involved in over the years.

    It seems as if everything Jones, Mann and the rest of the team touch turns to crap. You look into it and you’re gobsmacked by the sloppiness, the incompetence, the dishonesty, and the feeble efforts at spin and coverup. It’s really sort of pathetic in a relentless, never-ending way.

  7. It is unrealistic to expect bureaucrats to admit their involvement in the Climategate scandal or the cover-up.

    The hard work of Steve McIntyre, Jeff Id, Bishop Hill, et al. will probably become evident as sudden movement in several stagnant fields of science that formed the backdrop for the climate models: Astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, nuclear, particle, and solar physics.

    Thanks!
    Oliver

  8. Brian H said

    Oliver;
    Good point, and we certainly hope so! There are signs of it now. I think getting some really competent people p’d off at having their fields prostituted was the strategic and tactical error that will do the job.

  9. KevinUK said

    Ok jeff here is the thread on CA

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/10/british-due-diligence-royal-society-style/

    “Two days later (March 12), after Oxburgh had already sent out the list of publications to Emanuel, Davies sent an email to Rees and Brian Hoskins at 11:07 a.m. saying that Oxburgh would like to say that the list (already sent out) had been chosen in “consultation with the Royal Society”. The email shows clearly that Davies is well aware that they will be severely criticized for the list and that they want to keep it secret. (In fact, they did keep it secret.”

    If you read the coments after (http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/10/british-due-diligence-royal-society-style/#comment-231896), you’ll see that I’m pointing out to Steve M that I think Brian Hoskins, along with Rees (a fellow member of the UK Climate Change committee with Hoskins) is acting as a gatekeeper and that I think

    “He was in regular contact with the ‘good Dr Phil’ and Susan Solomon the other WG1 lead authors throughout the entire AR4 production process.”

    I know this because I have a copy of Hoskins emails that were released as a result of an FOIA application.

  10. Stilgar said

    Just to sum up what has been said in multiple topics…
    Davies said in an email to Beddington who he was consulting with before Oxburgh was selected.

    There has been discussion between the Royal Soc (Martin Rees, Brian Hoskins), UEA (me, Peter Liss) and Alan Thorpe [NERC]”

    At the end of the email, Davies said he would consult Beddington further. So it would seem the big names behind the investigations are:
    Martin Rees
    Brian Hoskins
    Peter Liss
    Alan Thorpe
    John Beddington
    Trevor Davies

    Who picked Oxburgh? Beddington suggested him and Trevor Davies picked him. I don’t know of any information that says Davies did or did not consult anyone other than Beddington before making a decision on the chairperson. An email from Davies to Beddington mentions that Rees and RS will help identify individuals to help with the selection, but not specifically the chairperson. Unknown if RS was specifically consulted about Oxburgh.

    Who picked the other members of the team? Oxburgh chose them from a list of 12/13 which were screened by the RS (from an email by Davies to Beddington). In fact some of those approached were “warmed up” by either Oxburgh, Beddington, Rees or Hoskins. http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/19/warming-up-the-oxburgh-inquiry/

    Who picked the 11 papers? Davies seems to be the prime target, with emails showing that only after the selection was the RS asked if it was ok to rubberstamp their approval. http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/10/british-due-diligence-royal-society-style/
    However Liss cannot be ruled out as Oxburgh mentions him as a possible candidate.

  11. Jeff Id said

    Stilgar:

    “However Liss cannot be ruled out as Oxburgh mentions him as a possible candidate.”

    If you follow the link to CA and the post, Davies is the man again.


    Dear Mr McIntyre
    In response to your recent enquiry I can provide the following information.

    I understand that the list of 11 papers for the Oxburgh review was collated by Prof Trevor Davies, in consultation with others. He was also the author of the statement at the bottom of the list.

    Yours sincerely,
    Lisa Williams

  12. Geoff Sherrington said

    Is there a misapplication of logic in the Oxburgh statement to the UK Commons Committee? “Because all of us were novices in this area, we all felt that they were a very good introduction.”

    One could not make that statement ab initio. There would have to be a separate idea about what would constitute a “bad introduction”. This leads to the possibility that the “bad” papers were culled with the knowledge of the Inquiry.

    When you are a novice in the success of seduction – as we all were, bar those yet to meet it – you have no idea of what constitutes good sex until you meet some bad. Help is available through an “introduction” (agency).

  13. Re: Oliver K. Manuel (Sep 16 15:21),
    Oliver, hopefully add
    Geology
    Statistics
    Engineering

  14. RE: Lucy Skywalker (16 Sept 10:14 pm)

    You are right. The problem starts at the top of the public research food chain, where NAS (National Academy of Sciences) decides which agencies will receive funds to support each NAS opinion.

    a.) CO2-Induced Global Warming
    b.) Solar Energy from H-Fusion
    c.) Standard Solar Model
    d.) Oscillating Neutrinos
    e.) Big Bang, etc, etc, etc

    Movement in diverse fields of science may occur in part because NAS President Dr. Ralph Cicerone encountered unfavorable responses in public when he tried to downplay the Climategate scandal and repeat his warning about the dangers of climate change: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42666

  15. Stilgar said

    re: Jeff Id (September 16, 2010 at 9:40 pm)

    I read that, however it says Davies “collated” the list. It is quite possible that Davies asked Liss and perhaps others (though not from RS) to submit to him the papers that best covered the controversy.

    Liss and possibly others gave him lists. It doesn’t look like a lot of the higher up people actually knew what was really going on and asked associates to fill in the blanks. From the other instances I see it as very likely that he asked others for information and simply took that information and put the multiple lists together into one.

    Not saying he is off the hook as he should know what papers are more representative than others, however if he really doen’t know and is relying on those he asked for assitance, then it is really those that provided assitance that we also need to know about.

    Seems like a good place to start would be to find out what Liss and Davies had said to eachother regard the list to see if the entire list came from Liss or if others had a hand in it.

  16. Geoff Sherrington said

    In the fullness of time, when sources are adequately protected, we can anticipate the second tranche of the Climategate tapes. This next release should make interesting reading when compared with the knee-jerk cover-up statements after the first tranche.

    Ever wondered why you have not read the report of the Norwich Constabulary into the alleged hacking? My guess is that all hell will break loose with the second tranche if they name who released the first lot.

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: