It’s a minor deal, but amusing to me.
A blog called The Autopsy, which set out last year to deflate ‘that imposter’ Obama and expose the frauds in climate change science, appears to be dead.
Heck, even J. A. Davison called ’em out.
The author probably just lost interest. If only more people with bad information would lose interest, the world would be a better place.
I’m praying Don McLeroy will lose interest in stuff other than dentistry, quick.
1 Comment | 
Climate change, Global warming, History, Humor, Politics, President Obama | Tagged: Climate change, Dissent, Global warming, History, Humor, President Obama | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
This video, from 2009, explains why the National Academies will release four reports on climate change, three of them next Wednesday.
NAS explains it this way at their website:
As part of its most comprehensive assessment to date, the National Research Council – the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering – will release three new reports examining how the nation can combat the effects of global warming. One focuses on the science to better understand climate change, and the others review options for limiting the magnitude of and adapting to the impacts of global warming. The reports are part of a congressionally requested suite of studies known as America’s Climate Choices.
Leave a Comment » | Climate change, climate_change, Global warming, History, Research, Science | Tagged: Climate change, Global warming, History, National Academy of Sciences, Research, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
I get e-mail from the good press people at the National Academies (of Science, Engineering, and Medicine):
America’s Climate Choices Reports to be Released May 19 at a Public Briefing
On May 19th, three reports in the America’s Climate Choices suite of studies will be released at a public briefing that begins at 10 a.m. EDT in the Lecture Room of the National Academy of Sciences building, 2100 C St., N.W., Washington. The reports are: Advancing the Science of Climate Change, which focuses on the scientific evidence regarding human-induced climate change and future research needs; Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, which assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and taking other actions to reduce the magnitude of climate change; and Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, which focuses on options to improving the nation’s capacity to adapt to climate change impacts.
Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, will deliver opening remarks, and members of the panels that authored the reports will discuss the reports findings and take questions.
America’s Climate Choices also includes two additional reports that will be released later this year: Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change will examine how best to provide decision makers with information on climate change, and an overarching report that looks across the topics of the four panel reports to offer an integrated view of the challenges and opportunities in the nation’s efforts to confront climate change.
The public is invited to the briefing and should RSVP to attend at americasclimatechoices.org. Those who cannot attend may watch a live video webcast and submit questions at http://www.national-academies.org.
This address works better for giving your RSVP to attend. A fourth report pends:
Still upcoming is the fourth and final panel report, Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change.
6 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Global warming, History, Science | Tagged: Climate change, Global warming, History, National Academy of Science, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Members of commitee and scientist witnesses at May 6 hearing of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. From left: Rep. Jay Inslee, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Dr. James Hurrell, Chairman Ed Markey, Dr. Lisa Graumlich, Dr. James McCarthy, and Dr. Chris Field
Excerpt from the opening statement from Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, at a May 6 hearing:
Those who deny global warming point to past uncertainties that have been refuted. They ignore the overwhelming observational evidence that the increased levels of heat-trapping pollution are already warming the planet. Instead of trying to understand the science, they use stolen emails about analysis of tree rings in Siberia to turn an honest discussion into a Russian Tree Ring Circus. Or they manufacture a cooling trend by cherry picking a few years out of a longer record of warming temperatures.
While the deniers hope to confuse the public, the real world consequences of inaction mount. Over the weekend, killer storms blew through Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky. In Nashville, nearly 13 inches of rain fell in just over two days time – almost doubling the previous record that fell in the aftermath of a hurricane in 1979.
These storms follow the wettest March on record in Boston. Two 50-year storms occurred within 2 weeks of each other. The National Guard was mobilized. Hundreds of people were evacuated from their homes. The region suffered millions of dollars in damages.
No single rainstorm can be attributed to climate change. Nor can a snowstorm disprove its existence. But the underlying science and the observed trends do point to more extreme weather events, especially heavy precipitation events because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture.
Extreme rainfall is just one of the consequences of the carbon pollution we are releasing into the air. Our witnesses today will explain how science has revealed this unseen pollution for what it is and discuss the very real consequences of its continuing accumulation in the atmosphere.
As we approach summer, our clean energy debate needs to acknowledge what many would like to deny. Our dependence on oil carries with it national security, economic and environmental risks. As gas prices rise and the oil slick spreads, perhaps we will finally acknowledge that we cannot drill our way to independence. We have less than 3 percent of proven oil reserves. Perhaps we can also acknowledge the basic facts that have been known for decades—increasing carbon pollution in the atmosphere is warming the planet and that the only way to put a halt to such warming is to move to clean energy solutions.
4 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Global warming, Green Politics, History, Politics, Science | Tagged: Chris Field, Christopher Monckton, Climate change, Global warming, Green Politics, History, House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, James Hurrell, James McCarthy, Lisa Graumlich, Politics, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Stupid is as stupid does.
Climate denialists trumpeted a hearing scheduled for Thursday before a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives at which the madcap, veracity-challenged Christopher Monckton will carry the banner for denialism:
Also testifying to the panel will be another Briton, Lord Christopher Monckton, a hereditary peer in the House of Lords and prominent critic of the scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic climate change.
Of course, Monckton is not a hereditary peer of the House of Lords. He has a peerage, but in Britain, they won’t let him near the levers of government. No one has a hereditary peerage any more, and Monckton has never sat in Lords or Commons.
If Monckton can lie about stuff like that, what won’t he lie about? If the denialists can be suckered so easily, what makes anyone think they are skeptics, and not gullibles? Bogus history, voodoo history, and voodoo science from the Republican end of the Select Committee. Astonishing.
At the hearing a letter from 250 scientists, members of the National Academy of Sciences, called on Congress to act wisely and soon to fight human-caused global warming.
Incredibly, Monckton was the sole witness from the Republican side. Remember the title of Chris Mooney’s book, The Republican War on Science? It’s still a valid title, it appears.
Monckton squirms among the scientists: From left, Dr. James Hurrell, Dr. James McCarthy, Lord Christopher Monckton, Dr. Chris Field, Dr. Lisa Graumlich; photo from the Select Committee
The hearing was before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, chaired by Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass.
Written statements from the May 6 hearing:
Statements are in .pdf format.
- OPENING STATEMENT: Chairman Edward J. Markey
- Dr. Lisa Graumlich, Director, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, and member of the “Oxburgh Inquiry” panel
- Dr. Chris Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, and co-chair of “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” portion of new IPCC report due in 2014
- Dr. James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University, past President and Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, co-chair of “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” portion of IPCC report published in 2001
- Dr. James Hurrell, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, contributor to IPCC reports
- Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Adviser, Science and Public Policy Institute
The hearing got precious little press, but it’s interesting to see the blogs that lead the denialism charge try to ignore most of the hearing.
13 Comments | Bogus history, Climate change, climate_change, Global warming, Green Politics, History, Politics, U.S. House of Representatives, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Bogus history, Chris Field, Christopher Monckton, Climate change, Climate Science, denialism, Global warming, Green Politics, James Hurrell, James McCarthy, Lisa Graumlich, Oxburgh Inquiry, Politics, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Endangered beaches in Chesapeake Bay - map from Jim Titus, EPA, via Wired
At Mother Jones Magazine’s website, “Buh-bye, East Coast Beaches”:
Over the past decade, [Jim] Titus and a team of contractors combined reams of data to construct a remarkably detailed model of how sea-level rise will impact the eastern seaboard. It was the largest such study ever undertaken, and its findings were alarming: Over the next 90 years, 1,000 square miles of inhabited land on the East Coast could be flooded, and most of the wetlands between Massachusetts and Florida could be lost. The favorably peer-reviewed study was scheduled for publication in early 2008 as part of a Bush Administration report on sea-level rise, but it never saw the light of day—an omission criticized by the EPA’s own scientific advisory committee. Titus has urged the more science-friendly Obama administration to publish his work, but so far, it hasn’t—and won’t say why.
So Titus recently launched a personal website, risingsea.net, to publish his work. “I decided to do my best to prevent the taxpayer investment from being wasted,” he says. The site includes “When the North Pole Melts,” a prescient holiday ditty recorded by his musical alter ego, Captain Sea Level, in the late ’80s.
Tip of the old scrub brush to Climate Desk.
1 Comment | Climate change, climate_change, Environmental protection, Global warming, Green Politics, History, oceans, Research, Science | Tagged: Climate change, Global warming, Green Politics, History, oceans, Politics, Research, Science, Sea Level Rise | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
So, you didn’t think the opposition to global warming was political? You thought “skeptics” were just out to make a scientific case?
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli - campaign photo
As the Hook explains, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ordered the University of Virginia to turn over all records they have of research done by Michael Mann while he was at the UVA (he left five years ago for Penn State). (Civil Investigative Demand, here)
It’s a fishing expedition, the very definition of a witch hunt. Also, as I read the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act upon which Cuccinelli bases his actions [see comments — better source here], it’s probably outside the statute of limitations.
Research that Cuccinelli has targeted to investigate includes work Mann did with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cuccinelli probably lacks jurisdiction for much of the stuff he wants, trumped by those federal agencies.
Mann is the guy who put together the chart of all the different threads of research that show warming climate, commonly known as the “hockey stick” after Al Gore’s years of presentations on the chart and the movie, “Inconvenient Truths.” Mann also is among those scientists in U.S. and England whose private e-mails were exposed in the breach of the e-mail servers at England’s Hadley Climate Research Unit.
Three different investigations have put Mann in the clear so far (Penn State’s .pdf of investigation results; response to Texas U.S. Rep. Joe Barton’s assault) — odd that stolen e-mails would produce doubts about the victims of the theft, but ethical standards in science research are indeed that high. Caesar’s wife couldn’t be considered for research grants.
Why do I think the statute of limitations may apply? Look at the law, linked above, the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act:
§ 8.01-216.9. Procedure; statute of limitations.
A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a trial or hearing conducted under this article may be served at any place in the Commonwealth.
A civil action under § 8.01-216.4 or 8.01-216.5 may not be brought (i) more than six years after the date on which the violation is committed or (ii) more than three years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the Commonwealth charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances, but in that event no more than ten years after the date on which the violation is committed, whichever occurs last.
In any action brought under § 8.01-216.5, the Commonwealth shall be required to prove all essential elements of the cause of action, including damages, by a preponderance of the evidence.
Research at a major research institution like a big, public university involves many layers of regulation and bureaucratic checking. Generally the university’s research office will require adherence to the school’s ethical code and all state laws up front, and then the auditors check the money flow and research activities through the project. There is a final sign off at most schools, which would qualify as “the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known by the official of the Commonwealth charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances.”
Cuccinelli is sending a clear signal to researchers that they are unwelcome in Virginia if their research doesn’t square with his politics — and his politics are weird. Watch to see what the response of the University is, especially if their delivery of documents doesn’t put this witch hunt to bed.
[Update notice: The text of the law noting the statute of limitations was updated on May 5, to show application to § 801-216.4 as well as § 801-216.5]
Other sources to check:
23 Comments | Accuracy, Bogus history, Chilling Effect, denialism, Environmental protection, Global warming, History, Junk science, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law, Research, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Chilling Effect, Climate change, Environmental protection, Global warming, Ken Cuccinelli, Law, Michael Mann, Research, University of Virginia, Virginia | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Here’s the Dilbert cartoon Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should have viewed before he went fishing:
3 Comments | Accuracy, Bogus history, Climate change, Global warming, History, Hoaxes, Junk science, Research, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: Accuracy, Bogus history, Climate change, Global warming, History, Hoaxes, Junk science, Ken Cucinelli, Michael Mann, Research, Science, Virginia, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
From NOAA, released April 15, 2010
Global warming slowed or stopped? Let’s look at the facts:
NOAA: Global Temps Push Last Month to Hottest March on Record
April 15, 2010
The world’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature made last month the warmest March on record, according to NOAA. Taken separately, average ocean temperatures were the warmest for any March and the global land surface was the fourth warmest for any March on record. Additionally, the planet has seen the fourth warmest January – March period on record.
NOAA’s (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) report points out — again — that local weather is not world climate:
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for March 2010 was the warmest on record at 56.3°F (13.5°C), which is 1.39°F (0.77°C) above the 20th century average of 54.9°F (12.7°C).
- The worldwide ocean surface temperature was the highest for any March on record –1.01°F (0.56°C) above the 20th century average of 60.7°F (15.9°C).
- Separately, the global land surface temperature was 2.45°F (1.36°C) above the 20th century average of 40.8 °F (5.0°C) — the fourth warmest on record. Warmer-than-normal conditions dominated the globe, especially in northern Africa, South Asia and Canada. Cooler-than-normal regions included Mongolia and eastern Russia, northern and western Europe, Mexico, northern Australia, western Alaska and the southeastern United State
News continues to roll in about the investigations of the stealing of e-mails from England’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), and the news is that the scientists who documented global warming were accurate and honest. Alas, such reports do not slow the anti-science denialist mob provocateurs.
So, we have assurance that the scientists are honest and hardworking. Their hard work shows the planet warming, and the most likely proximate cause of the warming is human-caused effluents.
Did your newspaper cover the story? How will denialists react? Will anyone really notice?
3 Comments | Cost of Green, Green Politics, Hoaxes, Politics | Tagged: Climate change, Cost of Green, denialism, Global warming, Green Politics, NOAA, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
So, Maggie Thatcher, his boss, also rejected Christopher Monckton’s preposterous claims against the science of climate change?
Who knew?
It’s clear Christopher Monckton doesn’t know . . . much of value.
Sorta disappointed Peter Sinclair didn’t go after Monckton’s preposterous insults of Jackie Kennedy and Rachel Carson, but there’s only so much debunking one can do in a limited period of time, and so much of Monckton’s work requires debunking, even cries out for debunking.
Is there anything Monckton claims which is not hoax?
3 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Cost of Green, Environmental protection, Glaciers, Global warming, Green Politics, Hoaxes, Science, Voodoo science | Tagged: AIDS Denialism, Christopher Monckton, Climate change, denialism, Environmental protection, Glaciers, Global warming, Hoaxers, Hoaxes, Science, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
One day doesn’t cut it anymore — there’s enough fouling of our planet to require an entire month of concern. Some say that’s not enough.
Here’s EPA’s Tip of the Day for today, April 13, with information on how you can listen to EPA podcasts and subscribe to the Tip of the Day feature:
Tread lightly! Use public transportation, carpool, walk, or bike whenever possible to reduce air pollution and save on fuel costs. Leaving your car at home just two days a week will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 1,600 pounds per year. If you can work from home, you’ll reduce air pollution and traffic congestion – and save money.
Play the podcast (MP3, 788KB, runtime 0:47) | Reduce your carbon footprint.Want more tips? Visit EPA’s Earth Day site to learn more about Earth Day, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and what you can do to help protect human health and the environment. http://www.epa.gov/earthday/tips2.htm
Leave a Comment » | Citizenship, Climate change, climate_change, Cost of Green, Environmental protection, Global warming, Green Politics | Tagged: Carbon Footprint, Climate change, Earth Month, Environmental protection, EPA, Global warming, Green Politics, Tip of the Day | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Peter Sinclair’s Hoax-Exposing Supervision found Christopher Monckton — and this is just part one. More hoax in Monckton than anyone really feared:
Tip of the old scrub brush to the indefatigable Tim Lambert at Deltoid.
Leave a Comment » | Green Politics, Hoaxes, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: Accuracy, Christopher Monckton, Climate change, Global warming, Green Politics, Hoaxes, Peter Sinclair, Politics, Science, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Heartland Institute, a right-wing political “think tank,” is sponsoring another conference of crank science about and crank scientists on global warming, May 16 to 18 in Chicago.
“Another?” Yeah, this is the fourth one.
The first one featured pure crankery, often, from Christopher Monckton and Steven Milloy, two people who have made careers out of pissing in the soup of science. The second conference pretended warming isn’t happening (the title of the conference was). The theme of the third conference is “Reconsidering the Science and the Economics,” but you’d have to be complete fool to think the Heartland Institute would allow a reconsideration of their misplaced sniping at science and bizarre claims that we cannot afford a healthy planet (we can’t afford an unhealthy planet!).
Monckton and Milloy, you recall, are two of the people promoting the shameful and erroneous attacks on Rachel Carson. Monckton stepped up the insanity, blaming Jackie Kennedy for malaria in Africa.
Milloy’s been left out of this one, but most of the grand cranks of climate science denial will be there — Soon, McIntyre, Monckton, and our friend Anthony Watts, who thinks talk of sunshine in policy issues is “hate speech” (Watts does not appear to be familiar with the ethics rules of journalism and political reporting.) Former Sen. George Allen will be there to lend his expertise on energy issues, as director of the Houston-based Institute for Energy Research. Fred Singer and Ian Plimer are scheduled. It’s a dense program.
Watts’s topic will be “Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” It should be a remarkable presentation.
If the surface temperature record isn’t reliable, what’s he doing using it every day in his weather forecasts? If it is reliable, what’s he doing attacking scientists for using it, and where does he propose to get better, more reliable data?
You can rely on this: There will be lots of press releases, but precious little science that has gone through any peer review process to provide reliability.
In fact, now would be a great time to brush up on Jeremy Bernstein’s methods for telling crank science from genius, and Bob Parks’s “Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science.”
I’d love to have the concession to sell the “Bogus Science Bingo” cards at the meeting.
Chicago in May can be delightful. Cooler days do not get so cool. Spring flowers still erupt. Warmer days will invite outdoor dining downtown and at Chicago’s great neighborhood restaurants.
But these guys will stay indoors and carp about science, about imagined conspiracies to keep their words of wisdom out of publication. Most of them will have some corporate or PAC group paying their way, but a few people will pay to see this parade of voodoo science. They will be had by all.
Leave a Comment » | Bogus history, Climate change, climate_change, Green Politics, History, Hoaxes, Politics, Voodoo science | Tagged: Climate change, Global warming, Hoaxes, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
As Galileo might have said, “Still the planet warms.”
A committee of England’s Parliament released its report on Hadley Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) stolen e-mails earlier today. The reports you heard that the scientific case showing global warming with human causation had died, were exaggerated, significantly in error, and hoaxes themselves.
The report comes from the House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee. Press release with links and previous releases from the Committee, below:
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Report publishedThe Committee published ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia‘, HC 387-I, its Eighth Report of Session 2009-10, on Wednesday 31 March 2010. Volume II, the oral and written evidence, was published the same day.
CLIMATE SCIENCE MUST BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT SAY MPs
The Science and Technology Committee today publishes its report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.
Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said:
“Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.”
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.
On the much cited phrases in the leaked e-mails—”trick” and “hiding the decline”—the Committee considers that they were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.
Insofar as the Committee was able to consider accusations of dishonesty against CRU, the Committee considers that there is no case to answer.
The Committee found no reason in this inquiry to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. But this was not an inquiry into the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built.
On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.
Committee announcementOn 22 January the Science and Technology Committee announced an inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Commenting on the material which the Committee has received since the announcement the Chairman, Phil Willis MP, said:
The Committee has been receiving a steady stream of contributions to the inquiry, for which it is grateful. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that the focus of the inquiry is the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research and the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA. It is not an inquiry into global warming. In the time remaining before the General Election the Committee would not have time to carry out such an inquiry.
Terms of Reference
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
—How independent are the other two international data sets?
Background
On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
Submissions
The Committee invited written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by Wednesday 10 February. The deadline has now passed.
Written correspondence
Letter from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia to the Chairman of the Committee
Oral evidencePrevious session:
Monday 1 March 2010
The Rt Hon the Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation; Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner; Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit; Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review; Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Defra
Press notices31/03/10 Report published
22/01/10 Inquiry announced
Tip of the old scrub brush to P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula and Watching the Deniers.
______________________
Update March 31, 20101: Is this a surprise? Contrarians, dissenters and deniers say the report errs.
Update April 5, 2010: A little slower than I had imagined, Watts Up With That denies the accuracy of the report — but the denial is a doozy of denialist argument from authority. It’s a “guest editorial” by S. Fred Singer. Among other things, Singer’s piece reveals why we don’t let partisan politicians run investigations. He’s miffed because the investigation didn’t give Singer, nor any other denialist, a chance to malign Hadley CRU. In listing reasons to put fingers in his ears and not listen, Singer said of the House of Commons report, “It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics.” There’s no good reason Commons should have take direct testimony from “scientifically competent skeptics,” it wasn’t a news article where false balance was desired. Instead, the question was whether Hadley’s scientists had done anything wrong. Singer can’t know, since he has no direct involvement in Hadley’s work, nor would the biased claims of a denialist be able to shed any more light. Perhaps critically, Singer can’t know whether the Commons committee took direct testimony from claimed skeptics or not. That the report doesn’t mention the claims doesn’t mean the question wasn’t raised. It means that in the end, it wasn’t relevant, and not supported by the facts.
Update April 6, 2010: Singer’s in error. McIntyre has his say in Appendix 10 of the report. How many other contrarians, denialists and self-proclaimed “skeptics” are in the report?
8 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Conservation, Cost of Green, denialism, Global warming, Green Politics, Research, Science | Tagged: Climate change, climate_change, Cost of Green, denialism, Environmental protection, Global warming, Green Politics, Hoaxes | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Christopher Monckton took his “pathological liar” comedy routine to Orem, Utah, last Tuesday night.
Peg McEntee wrote about it for the Salt Lake Tribune, “Monckton: Believe it or not.” McEntee saw through him, had the good sense to check the list of Members of the House of Lords, and noted that contrary to his claims, Monckton does not appear on the list.
But the priceless piece is this comment to McEntee’s article by adjustablespanner:
I like him much better as Dame Edna.
Christopher Monckton tries to get a clue - image, The Age
Dame Edna, already clued in - InsideSoCal image
More:
Is Monckton still in the country? If he’s going to be in Texas, I’d love to debate him. Is he still chicken?
Leave a Comment » | Climate change, climate_change, denialism, Hoaxes | Tagged: Christopher Monckton, Climate change, denialism, Global warming, Hoaxers, Hoaxes, Salt Lake Tribune, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Ed Darrell on Texas's Colorado River
Come on in, the water's fine. Come often: Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 