The report of Sir Muir Russell’s Independent Climate Change Email Review will be published today.
Let’s get one thing straight right at the outset: an inquiry that is set up, funded, and has its terms of reference set by the institution that it is intended to inquire into cannot be described as independent. Not under any circumstances. Not even in the fairy-tale world of climate politics.
Such an inquiry might – just might – come up with a report that is fair-minded and thorough, but that still does not mean that it is independent, nor is it likely to be effective in restoring confidence. Just imagine public reaction if BP announced that they had set up an independent inquiry into the causes of, and responsibility for, the Gulf oil spill.
There have already been two reports on the Climategate scandal. An extremely hasty and superficial report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee failed to address the issues that really concern sceptics. It did, however, set out some sensible recommendations as to how the University of East Anglia’s other inquiries should be conducted, and these were made very clear to Sir Muir Russell both when he gave evidence to the committee and in the published report. I will probably be returning to this later today.
The inquiry into the science produced at the CRU, which the university entrusted to Lord Oxburgh, has already become a laughing stock with, apparently, no written terms of reference and no record of the evidence taken.
So far, the Climategate scandal has been seen as a problem affecting only the climate community. It provided a window on a tribal culture in which it is very difficult to see how objective and effective scientific research could be carried out. This is clear to anyone who has browsed the emails that were released on the internet last November.
If the Russell inquiry now fails to address the real issues raised by Climategate, and there has been plenty of time for them to do so, then the scandal will no longer be confined to the climate science community. It will tell us that the scientific and political establishment, who are ultimately responsibility for ensuring that scientific research which has a massive impact on public policy is properly conducted, dare not lift the lid on climate science and have a very careful look at what is happening.
Hmm – probably best to wait before commenting. But I thought this contribution by Roger Harrabin on the BBC’s Today programme this morning interesting. I detected a more open mind at work. And he included a comment from Steve McIntyre. Then, at the end of the same programme, there was a short interview with Lord Stern and Fred Pearce. Stern gave a frankly ridiculous overview of the “big picture” but Pearce, it must be said, was cautious and repeated his Guardian claim that, in future, the practice of climate science must change because the need for transparency was now acknowledged.
“Independent” inquiries, which are conducted by the party being examined, have a tendency to be meaningless “whitewashes”.
Another good example is here:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=4217
Max
PS Not to invoke Godwin (and the WWI military tribunals of the victorious Allied powers were certainly also not “independent”), but it would have been rather silly to have the Nuremberg trials conducted by the Nazi Germany high command, wouldn’t it?
Well, it does (at first sight) seem to be another whitewash. Here’s what the Guardian says:
First analysis by Guardian environment editor David Adam here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty
suggests a whitewash. “Everything they did was fine, so they should have been more open about it” (because they had nothing to hide).
Clearly all those who have expressed any doubts can expect a mass attack of the ad hominems in the media. I’m looking forward to seeing how the Guardian plays this, given that Monbiot called for Jones’ resignation, then retracted (more or less) and Pearce, who was brought in to do the investigative journalism no-one else would touch, was also highly critical. The whole point of being an investigative journalist like Monbiot or Pearce is to cast a critical eye on official reports. Will they?
You may prefer to carry on at the new thread just posted here.
I am surprised that the previous of Muir Rusell has not had wider media coverage. It may be because it was in Scotland where it happened. He was Cabinet Secretary to the Scotish Executive while the Parliament Building, promised at £40 million, was completed at £414 million. The Inquiry/Whtewash, insofar as it found anyone to blamem blamed him since he had “admitted” to having hidden the bills from the various ministers. Since the costs were common knowledge it is unfortunate that none of the ministers got any information from the papers. As a result [snip] the Scottish people of £374 million he had to resign & has since received a number of well paid jobs from the politicians he claimed to have received.
An alternate & common view is that he lied to protect the politicians.
Their enthusiasm for giving this [snip] well paying jobs is certainly consistent with that.
If that is the case & EAU were looking for somebody who could be relied on to [snip] to protect the political establishment they simply could not have found somebody more suitable. On the other hand were they looking for somebody honest who could be trusted to tell the truth there are more than 6 billion people on the planet they would have chosen first.
I wrote on this here http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/search?q=MUIR+RUSSELL which links to 2 wikipedia articles. His name has since been excised from the linked article on the Scottish Parliament but the event still has a brief mention on his bio page.
[See last paragraph of header post here: TonyN]