News blog

New ‘climate-gate’ inquiry head already under fire

Yesterday the University of East Anglia announced the members of a review panel that would be investigating the scientific papers produced by its Climatic Research Unit, in the wake of the ‘climate-gate’ email theft.

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, noted approvingly that the panel headed by Lord Oxburgh was made up of “high-quality” individuals of authority and integrity.

“We will now see predictable attempts by so-called ‘sceptics’ to discredit the panel before it has even started work so that its findings can be conveniently dismissed unless it hands a propaganda goal to those who promote denial and complacency about the causes and consequences of climate change,” he added.

And so it came to pass…

“Commenters are also noting the background of Ron Oxburgh, the chairman of the RS panel. Lord Oxburgh is:

• President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association

• Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables

• A member of the Green Fiscal Commission

So we have a chairman with a direct financial interest in the outcome. I’m not sure this is a surprise.”

Bishop Hill

“The man could scarcely be more parti pris if they’d given the job to Al Gore. … So the chairman of this “independent panel” has a direct financial interest in the outcome.”

– James Delingpole, The Daily Telegraph

“Climate sceptics questioned whether Lord Oxburgh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables, was truly independent because he led organisations that depended on climate change being seen as an urgent problem.”

The Times

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Tom Matkin said:

    And is the sceptic criticism valid or not? That would seem to be a more important issue to deal with than the warning that such criticism might be forthcoming. It seems on the face of it that Lord Oxburgh is far from independent. I see no argument here to the contrary. Just smug criticism of those who have pointed this out. Journalists must surely be familiar with the red herring response of shooting the messenger instead of dealing with the message. Isn’t that what Mr. Cressey is doing here?

  2. Report this comment

    Brer Fox said:

    Any bias or conflict taints the entire panel finding unless off-set by one who is equally biased on the opposite side.

    That is not the fault of “skeptics.” That is just the way things work.

  3. Report this comment

    Chris said:

    As a skeptic with a small ‘s’ I have to ask why not have someone without these links to avoid all of this trouble.

    Simples.

    Just appointing someone like this seems like the people making the choices were simple.

  4. Report this comment

    Liam said:

    Maybe if they’d chosen a chairman who was clearly impartial, rather than one with such an obvious conflict of interests, it would have been harder for critics to discredit the panel.

  5. Report this comment

    Bruce said:

    Another sham. Shame!

    Bruce M. Albert, Ph.D., Leverhume PDRA, Durham U. (top UK research dept. and not proud to be associated with liars and cheats)

  6. Report this comment

    Martin Audley said:

    The Register and other sites are reporting yet another Oops. It turns out my noble Lord has ignobly forgotten to mention yet another eco directorship – of GLOBE – an organisation . His announced appointment by the University of East Anglia was “Lord Oxburgh FRS, … is to chair an independent Scientific Assessment Panel to examine important elements of the published science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)…”

    So come on Daniel – rather than write a story to get your attack in first “and so it came to pass” why not address the real issue of why, of all the respectable scientists on the planet, a man with a direct financial interest in the subject was chosen? Yet again.

  7. Report this comment

    Tim Howells said:

    I never would have dreamed that in my lifetime I would see the journal Nature become a laughingstock in the scientific community. This is a real shame.

  8. Report this comment

    milgram said:

    “I would see the journal Nature become a laughingstock in the scientific community”

    Who’s laughing? Go shoot someone else’s messenger.

    What next? “OMG this scientist recycles his household waste! conflict of interest!”

  9. Report this comment

    Martin Audley said:

    My earlier comment was incomplete:

    I meant to add that the entire raison d’etre of the GLOBE organisation is to arrange and persuade world politicians to create laws forcing the reduction of CO2 emissions.

    Its purpose disappears if no proof can be found that human sourced CO2 is responsible for critical and unprecedented global warming.

    So in response to the comment by “milgram”, it’s not that this scientist recycles his household waste, it’s that he holds a very senior position in an organisation that absolutely needs the “hockey stick”, and CRU alarmism, to exist.

    My noble lord absolutely has a conflict of interest.

  10. Report this comment

    Harryhammer said:

    There are plenty of groups opposing action by the U.S. government to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Most of them have little or nothing to do with science. The core of the denial movement is the Competitive Enterprise Institute. If not for the herculean effort by this and other conservative think tanks to derail science, we could very well be on our way to solving a major crisis in which time is a critical factor.

    What’s happening now is nothing new.

    In the 1980’s, scientists were concerned about the ozone layer when most of the world didn’t have the slightest clue about what ozone was. Scientists were saying that a compound best known by the DuPont brand name “Freon” was harming the planet. They said that certain chemicals were destroying part of the atmosphere that is essential for human life because it blocks out harmful ultraviolet radiation that causes cancer.

    You can read the full story here:

    https://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/opinions-that-matter/

  11. Report this comment

    shane said:

    In my opinion the people setting up this inquiry really need to have a little think to themselves – How bad does this conflict of interest look? At least try to make an effort! You don’t need a specialized scientist to lead an enquiry, any half intelligent scientist with access to raw (raw!) data could do that.

  12. Report this comment

    Chris Ryan said:

    Why not set a great white shark to guard a popular public bathing beach?

    Lord Oxburgh, had he any ethics at all, would have declined to take the post.

    The University of East Anglia’s Chancellor and Directors would clearly be unable to pass an Ethics 101 course at any worthwhile institution, since they have said that they do not see any conflict of interest!!

    If anyone in the CRU knew the meaning of the word “ethics”, the Climategate e-mails would never have been written and nobody would be worrying about the myth of AGW.

  13. Report this comment

    Mike Lough said:

    Harryhammer your ozone example is proof that the world community does solve real problems when supported by proper science. The case here is people with financial self interest trying to block opposing views.

Comments are closed.