The University of East Anglia has defended the choice of Lord Oxburgh to head its enquiry into Climategate. On Tuesday we revealed Oxburgh's leading role in a global warming campaign network called Globe International. Funded by the UN and the World Bank, Globe is a network for legislators. Oxburgh had disclosed a slew of other …
Gimme more reasons
Another reason to abolish the House of Lords along with the current twats we call the monarchy. Britain needs to become an independent republic with a dynamic global economy not tied down by the EU, UN or any other mafia run by technocrats.
If it weren't for the lords the government would have absolutely no checks or balances and would simply be able to make up laws and whip them through regardless of their merit or lack there of.
If you think the governments got through some mental laws you should see some of them before the lords took a look.
Missing the point...
"Lord Oxburgh's views on climate change are a matter of public record."
Are they trying to defend his position with this argument?
Missing the point
Anyone who knows enough about the issues to be in charge of the panel will have an opinion... at least his is out in the open.
Someone impartial would be better but they don't seem to exist.
Anyway, this investigation is a waste of time and won't change a damn thing about what either side of the debate thinks, whatever the outcome is. They might as well just have a dance-off.
"he can see no other explanation"
That doesn't mean there isn't one (natural variability comes to mind). I wonder how he explains the Roman and Mediaeval warm periods, the first of which allowed Hannibal across the Alps with his elephants? Perhaps they farted a lot.
...of course do your own research. The solution to your mystification is readily available.
I think we can all see how this one will go. questions posed in the most objective way, (guess the objective)
Now see here can you please tell us how the CRU was a splendid bunch of chaps all doing the right things?
Yes that is right.
Ok well that is the job done, now all have a nice dry sherry and thank you chaps for a job well done.
This is Britain mate
As anyone who has had even a cursory brush-up with the accounts of a any sufficiently large company under British leadership can testify anything that is less than a few tens of millions is not a conflict of Interest. Conrad Black was not an exemption. He _IS_ _THE_ _RULE_.
We really need the USA laws on whistleblowers here and we need them ASAP.
A clear conflict
Oxburgh's mandate is to examine the veracity of the scientific product produced by CRU, yet he has made it clear in the past that his mind is made up on the quality of the science, saying, "we are as certain as we can that by burning fossil fuels we are turning a benign natural phenomenon – the greenhouse effect that makes the earth warm enough for us to inhabit – in to a seriously dangerous one by trapping so much heat that sea level rises and the world climate becomes wild and unpredictable." He has been an outspoken crusader of Global Warming alarmism and it has been established that Oxburgh has pecuniary interests in ensuring that the public remains convinced on the science.
If this is not a conflict of interest than I don't know what is.
This sort of thing can only further erode the confidence that the general public has in climate science. If climate scientists want to be taken seriously, then they should rebel over this appointment.
Whom do you suggest?
As far as I can tell, the only person who certain people think would be suitable to head an enquiry like this would be some rabidly anti-academic skeptical blogger. The trouble is, they usually don't have any qualifications except having a website.
I don't understand how believing in current climate science affects your ability to decide whether someone perverted peer review or not. As someone who has peer reviewed articles -- even of people I know personally and would consider friends -- it doesn't make the slightest difference when the article is in front of you and the red pen is in your hand who the author is.
The trouble with people nowadays is that they don't realize that (at least in my corner of the academic world) some people actually still have principles and ethics. Just because you are somebody's colleague or friend, or have the same opinions on one subject as them, does not mean you cannot be scathing about their conduct. Even if I agree with their conclusion, I can (and will) rip apart their arguments for it if I don't believe them.
Re: Whom do you suggest?
I don't think a professional skeptic is being demanded - just somebody who isn't up to his neck in vested interests. The value of Oxburgh's personal worth is materially affected by the outcome of his enquiry.
You would think such a person would exist, somewhere. But maybe they don't exist - and everyone is on the take.
To fail to see this suggests some serious intellectual or moral shortcomings.
Re: Whom do you suggest?
I'd have thought that a respected Statistician* would be ideal. You'd probably need one with a proven ability to keep a straight face when presented with something seriously amusing though.
* i.e. from a branch of science that has a very real and significant bearing on the subject, but with no axe to grind either way.
Must Contain, Etc.
Feels like someone's gotta be a jawbreaker in this issue. What, Where, When?
Let us not forget
that UEA has a department of Creative Writing whose influence plainly extends throughout the institution.
We've heard of it.
Response to this rubbish article
I usually respond to these kind of articles and the comments on this page. I usually spend some time doing some research, digging out some facts and putting together a coherent argument.
But I don't have the energy all these AGW sceptics have, or maybe the fact that I try and have some facts behind me, rather than just spewing the same tired "medieval warming period"/"didn't all scientists say we were going into a new ice age 20 years ago"/"all scientists are just interested in lining their own pockets" lines means that my responses require a bit more effort.
Sceptics - most scientific evidence is against you. I don't know why you ignore this particular science but are happy to benefit from modern medicine, technology etc. Maybe it's because it doesn't require you to make any kind of sacrifice, to buy a fuel efficient car instead of a Chelsea tractor, to take public transport when you can, to buy local produce rather than out of season stuff flown in from NZ. I hope whatever your reason your feigned ignorance assuages your conscience. I also hope that once we have legislation in place to enforce some more environmentally friendly behaviour or the sh*t hits the fan that some way is found to single out those who have prevented any kind of progress and make them pay the costs of their obstructive behaviour.
"Sceptics - most scientific evidence is against you. I don't know why you ignore this particular science but are happy to benefit from modern medicine, technology etc."
Or rather most scientific evidence which 3rd parties have been *allowed* to see is against you, which is rather the point.
This is an inquiry into the *methods* used by the CRU and the credibility and impartiality of the leader of this (scientific) investigation is *critical*. Lord Oxburgh is not just "minded" to believe in AGW (but willing to change his mind), he is a member of a group *dedicated* to promoting that view and is actively involved with companies which expect to benefit from that view *regardless* of weather it is proved false once they have made their money.
CRU's repeated refusal to release *all* its data, coupled with what we now know of the programs used to analyse (and it seems in some case to create it) it given by the harrry_read_me file made the selection of impartial team members *essential* to avoid charges of "Well he would say that, wouldn't he."
I am *not* a skeptic. I believe that human kind *has* reached a point where the size of its activity *is* great enough to influence global climate. But that is my *personal* belief and the shameful way this "research" has been conducted makes me doubt my view. A scientist who says "It's real, but we can't tell you how we know this," is *not* a scientist, he's a priest with a dogma.
It would appear that the University of East Anglia would not pass an Ethics 101 class at any normal institution on the planet.
Appointing Oxburgh to run an inquiry into Climategate is like setting a very hungry great white shark to guard a public swimming beach!
But then, UEA and the CRU obviously don't understand ethics anyway or the Climategate e-mails and other documents would never have been written in the first place.
Oh.. and by the way... I have read those Climategate e-mails and all the supporting documents. They are damning in the extreme!
Run a similar scheme as AGW, its called a protection racket, scare the locals into giving up large sums of cash. Does anyone know when Mr Gore will reach his target of $1 billion made from AGW? I would of thought he would retire then but then again when you have your own money tree who would give it up?
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked