http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...tegate_report/
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...sessment+Panel
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/o...ide-the-trick/ [McIntyre]

Oxburgh blesses Climategate boffins
Keep on keeping calm, and carry on
By Andrew Orlowski . Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 14th April 2010 14:36 GMT

All's well at CRU. The University of East Anglia's scientific enquiry into the Climategate affair,
led by Lord Oxburgh, has exonerated the staff involved.

After just 15 days on the job, Oxburgh has dismissed the charges in a brisk five-page report. The
academics under fire were the IPCC's leading authorities on temperature reconstructions, and their
work was central to the claim that recent temperatures are anomalous.

Oxburgh finds space, however, to blame the Climatic Research Unit's external critics for taking a
"selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU". These critics failed to
account for the "difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted".

However Oxburgh admits the enquiry team looked at the issue with one eye shut. No critics of CRU's
work, Stephen McIntyre or Doug Keenan, were interviewed, and the enquiry admits "We have not
exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work".

The only criticism is mild. The enquiry notes:

"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because
it is fundamentally statistical. Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on
researchers to document the judgemental decisions they have made so that the work can in principle
be replicated by others."

Oxburgh concludes: "We found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who
were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention."

McIntyre calls the report "flimsy and embarrassing" and "a feeble sleight-of-hand" in his initial
commentary on Oxburgh's conclusion. McIntyre says the conclusion that the team "regrettably"
"neglected" to indicate the divergence problem - when tree data disagrees with the instrumental
temperature record - is incorrect

"The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally," counters McIntyre.

Lord who?

The choice of Lord Oxburgh was questioned by critics, one of whom compared it to "putting Dracula
in charge of the Blood Bank".

Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate
Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to
Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to declare his directorship of GLOBE,
an international network of legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.

Oxburgh's is the second of two 'independent' enquiries commissioned by the University. The other,
led by Sir Muir Russell, continues.

You can download the Oxburgh report here. It won't take you long to read. ®

On 14 Apr, 16:27, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...ide-the-trick/[McIntyre]

Oxburgh blesses Climategate boffins
Keep on keeping calm, and carry on
By Andrew Orlowski . Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 14th April 2010 14:36 GMT

All's well at CRU. The University of East Anglia's scientific enquiry into the Climategate affair,
led by Lord Oxburgh, has exonerated the staff involved.

After just 15 days on the job, Oxburgh has dismissed the charges in a brisk five-page report. The
academics under fire were the IPCC's leading authorities on temperature reconstructions, and their
work was central to the claim that recent temperatures are anomalous.

Oxburgh finds space, however, to blame the Climatic Research Unit's external critics for taking a
"selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU". These critics failed to
account for the "difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted".

However Oxburgh admits the enquiry team looked at the issue with one eye shut. No critics of CRU's
work, Stephen McIntyre or Doug Keenan, were interviewed, and the enquiry admits "We have not
exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work".

The only criticism is mild. The enquiry notes:

"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because
it is fundamentally statistical. Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on
researchers to document the judgemental decisions they have made so that the work can in principle
be replicated by others."

Oxburgh concludes: "We found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who
were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention."

McIntyre calls the report "flimsy and embarrassing" and "a feeble sleight-of-hand" in his initial
commentary on Oxburgh's conclusion. McIntyre says the conclusion that the team "regrettably"
"neglected" to indicate the divergence problem - when tree data disagrees with the instrumental
temperature record - is incorrect

"The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally," counters McIntyre.

Lord who?

The choice of Lord Oxburgh was questioned by critics, one of whom compared it to "putting Dracula
in charge of the Blood Bank".

Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate
Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to
Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to declare his directorship of GLOBE,
an international network of legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.

Oxburgh's is the second of two 'independent' enquiries commissioned by the University. The other,
led by Sir Muir Russell, continues.

You can download the Oxburgh report here. It won't take you long to read. ®

What a joke! They should have worked with pro statisticians but they
did alright without!? No they didn't. In fact no-one knows whether
they did alright in their analysis, as we don't know what data thy
started with, and probably never will. Are these people plucking
conclusions from the air?

On Apr 14, 10:27*am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...ide-the-trick/[McIntyre]

Oxburgh blesses Climategate boffins
Keep on keeping calm, and carry on
By Andrew Orlowski . Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 14th April 2010 14:36 GMT

All's well at CRU. The University of East Anglia's scientific enquiry into the Climategate affair,
led by Lord Oxburgh, has exonerated the staff involved.

After just 15 days on the job, Oxburgh has dismissed the charges in a brisk five-page report. The
academics under fire were the IPCC's leading authorities on temperature reconstructions, and their
work was central to the claim that recent temperatures are anomalous.

Oxburgh finds space, however, to blame the Climatic Research Unit's external critics for taking a
"selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU". These critics failed to
account for the "difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted".

However Oxburgh admits the enquiry team looked at the issue with one eye shut. No critics of CRU's
work, Stephen McIntyre or Doug Keenan, were interviewed, and the enquiry admits "We have not
exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work".

The only criticism is mild. The enquiry notes:

"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been involved in this work because
it is fundamentally statistical. Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on
researchers to document the judgemental decisions they have made so that the work can in principle
be replicated by others."

Oxburgh concludes: "We found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who
were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention."

McIntyre calls the report "flimsy and embarrassing" and "a feeble sleight-of-hand" in his initial
commentary on Oxburgh's conclusion. McIntyre says the conclusion that the team "regrettably"
"neglected" to indicate the divergence problem - when tree data disagrees with the instrumental
temperature record - is incorrect

"The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally," counters McIntyre.

Lord who?

The choice of Lord Oxburgh was questioned by critics, one of whom compared it to "putting Dracula
in charge of the Blood Bank".

Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate
Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to
Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to declare his directorship of GLOBE,
an international network of legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.

Oxburgh's is the second of two 'independent' enquiries commissioned by the University. The other,
led by Sir Muir Russell, continues.

You can download the Oxburgh report here. It won't take you long to read. ®

There is a good reason why actual real statisticians are not involved
in the agw boondoggle. If they had real statisticians look at their
data, they have no useful results to back their theory.

It's all made up crap.

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 Apr, 16:27, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...ide-the-trick/[McIntyre]

Oxburgh blesses Climategate boffins
Keep on keeping calm, and carry on
By Andrew Orlowski . Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 14th April 2010 14:36 GMT

All's well at CRU. The University of East Anglia's scientific
enquiry into the Climategate affair, led by Lord Oxburgh, has
exonerated the staff involved.

After just 15 days on the job, Oxburgh has dismissed the charges in
a brisk five-page report. The academics under fire were the IPCC's
leading authorities on temperature reconstructions, and their work
was central to the claim that recent temperatures are anomalous.

Oxburgh finds space, however, to blame the Climatic Research Unit's
external critics for taking a "selective and uncharitable approach
to information made available by CRU". These critics failed to
account for the "difficult circumstances under which university
research is sometimes conducted".

However Oxburgh admits the enquiry team looked at the issue with one
eye shut. No critics of CRU's work, Stephen McIntyre or Doug Keenan,
were interviewed, and the enquiry admits "We have not exhaustively
reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work".

The only criticism is mild. The enquiry notes:

"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been
involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical. Under
such circumstances there must be an obligation on researchers to
document the judgemental decisions they have made so that the work
can in principle be replicated by others."

Oxburgh concludes: "We found a small group of dedicated if slightly
disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus
of public attention."

McIntyre calls the report "flimsy and embarrassing" and "a feeble
sleight-of-hand" in his initial commentary on Oxburgh's conclusion.
McIntyre says the conclusion that the team "regrettably" "neglected"
to indicate the divergence problem - when tree data disagrees with
the instrumental temperature record - is incorrect

"The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally,"
counters McIntyre.

Lord who?

The choice of Lord Oxburgh was questioned by critics, one of whom
compared it to "putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank".

Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies,
and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon
Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to
Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to
declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of
legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.

Oxburgh's is the second of two 'independent' enquiries commissioned
by the University. The other, led by Sir Muir Russell, continues.

You can download the Oxburgh report here. It won't take you long to
read. ®

What a joke! They should have worked with pro statisticians but they
did alright without!? No they didn't. In fact no-one knows whether
they did alright in their analysis, as we don't know what data thy
started with, and probably never will. Are these people plucking
conclusions from the air?

Hell, they will probably declare the hockey stick valid.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:02:54 -0400, James wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 Apr, 16:27, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...tegate_report/
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...ents/Report+of
+the...http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/o...k-to-hide-the-
trick/[McIntyre]

Oxburgh blesses Climategate boffins
Keep on keeping calm, and carry on
By Andrew Orlowski . Get more from this author Posted in Environment,
14th April 2010 14:36 GMT

All's well at CRU. The University of East Anglia's scientific enquiry
into the Climategate affair, led by Lord Oxburgh, has exonerated the
staff involved.

After just 15 days on the job, Oxburgh has dismissed the charges in a
brisk five-page report. The academics under fire were the IPCC's
leading authorities on temperature reconstructions, and their work was
central to the claim that recent temperatures are anomalous.

Oxburgh finds space, however, to blame the Climatic Research Unit's
external critics for taking a "selective and uncharitable approach to
information made available by CRU". These critics failed to account
for the "difficult circumstances under which university research is
sometimes conducted".

However Oxburgh admits the enquiry team looked at the issue with one
eye shut. No critics of CRU's work, Stephen McIntyre or Doug Keenan,
were interviewed, and the enquiry admits "We have not exhaustively
reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work".

The only criticism is mild. The enquiry notes:

"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been
involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical. Under
such circumstances there must be an obligation on researchers to
document the judgemental decisions they have made so that the work can
in principle be replicated by others."

Oxburgh concludes: "We found a small group of dedicated if slightly
disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention."

McIntyre calls the report "flimsy and embarrassing" and "a feeble
sleight-of-hand" in his initial commentary on Oxburgh's conclusion.
McIntyre says the conclusion that the team "regrettably" "neglected"
to indicate the divergence problem - when tree data disagrees with the
instrumental temperature record - is incorrect

"The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally," counters
McIntyre.

Lord who?

The choice of Lord Oxburgh was questioned by critics, one of whom
compared it to "putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank".

Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and
is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon
Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to
Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to
declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of
legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.

Oxburgh's is the second of two 'independent' enquiries commissioned by
the University. The other, led by Sir Muir Russell, continues.

You can download the Oxburgh report here. It won't take you long to
read. ®

What a joke! They should have worked with pro statisticians but they
did alright without!? No they didn't. In fact no-one knows whether they
did alright in their analysis, as we don't know what data thy started
with, and probably never will. Are these people plucking conclusions
from the air?

Hell, they will probably declare the hockey stick valid.

They tried that with Lysenkoism, but it still didn't work.

Climategate: Oxburgh's "Trick To Hide the Trick."

14 Apr 2010



The Oxburgh report " is a flimsy and embarrassing five pages

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/...sessment+Panel



They did not interview me nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or
targets.



The committee was announced on March 22 and their "report" is dated April
12 - three weeks end to end - less time than even the Parliamentary
Committee.



They took no evidence.



Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on
CRUTEM.



Notably missing from the "sample" are their 1000-year reconstructions:

Jones et al 1998,

Mann and Jones 2003,

Jones and Mann 2004, etc.



They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents
of arbitrary adjustment ("bodging"), cherry picking and deletion of adverse
data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee
and the Muir Russell Committee.



I'll report on these issues later in the day as they'll take a little time
to review.



First, let's observe Oxburgh's trick to hide the "trick".



Long before Climategate, Climate Audit readers knew that you had to watch
the pea under the thimble whenever you're dealing with the Team. This is
true with Oxburgh of Globe International as well.



Oxburgh of Globe International alludes to the "trick..to hide the decline"
in veiled terms as follows:



"CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental
and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th
century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have
sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we find this regrettable,
we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined."



Without specifically mentioning the famous "trick .to hide the decline",
Oxburgh subsumes the "trick" as "regrettable neglect" by "IPCC and others".



But watch the pea under Oxburgh's thimble.



"The Oxburgh Report regrettably neglected to highlight the fact that CRU
scientists Briffa and Jones, together with Michael Mann, were the IPCC
authors responsible for this "regrettable neglect" in the Third Assessment
Report. They also regrettably neglected to report that CRU scientist Briffa
was the IPCC author responsible for the corresponding section in AR4. "



Oxburgh pretends that the fault lay with "IPCC and others", but this
pretence is itself a trick.



CRU was up to its elbows in the relevant IPCC presentations that
"regrettably neglected" to show the divergent data in their graphics.



It is also untrue that CRU authors, in their capacity as IPCC authors,
"regrettably neglected" to show the divergent data in the IPCC graphics.



The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally - see for example
IPCC and the Trick,

(http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/)

which show awareness on the part of CRU scientists that showing the decline
would "dilute the message" that IPCC wanted to send.



The eventual IPCC figure, as reported here on a number of cases, gave a
false rhetorical message of the veracity of the proxy reconstructions.



ClimatAudit readers are also well aware that IPCC and Briffa were
categorically asked by one AR4 reviewer (me) to disclose the divergent data.
CRU's Briffa refused, saying only that it would be "inappropriate" to show
the data in the graphic. They didn't "neglect" to show the divergent data
from the Briffa reconstruction.



This was a considered decision, carried out in AR4 despite pointed
criticism.



Yes, the decline had been disclosed in the "peer reviewed literature".
Indeed, that was how I became aware of the trick - long before Climategate
and why, as an AR4 peer reviewer, I asked that IPCC not use the trick once
again in AR4.



IPCC presentations are how the climate science community speaks to the
world.



Climate scientists, including CRU scientists, have a far greater obligation
of full, true and plain disclosure in IPCC reports than even the specialist
literature.



Oxburgh pretends that (partial) disclosure of adverse results by CRU in
specialist literature is sufficient. It isn't. There was a continuing
obligation to disclose adverse results in IPCC graphics.



CRU "scientists" acted as IPCC authors. The complaint about the trick arose
out of how CRU "scientists" carried out their duties as IPCC authors.



In this respect, the Oxburgh report is a feeble sleight-of-hand that in
effect tries to make the public think that the "trick" was no more than
"regrettable neglect" by the "IPCC and others" - nothing to do with CRU.



In other words, Oxburgh is using a trick to hide the "trick".



Trick me once, shame on you.



UPDATE:

The Daily Telegraph reports:



Professor Hand did say that "inappropriate methods" were used by a separate
university to draw up the infamous "hockey stick" graph showing the rise in
global temperatures over more than 1,000 years.



Uh, memo to Oxburgh.



CRU produced its own hockey stick graphs in Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones
2003, for example.



For some reason, Oxburgh and his associates "regrettably neglected" to
consider these articles.



http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/o...ide-the-trick/





Warmest Regards



Bon_0



"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

On 15 Apr, 04:02, "James" wrote:
"Giga2" wrote in message





On 14 Apr, 16:27, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...gate_report/ht....[McIntyre]

Oxburgh blesses Climategate boffins
Keep on keeping calm, and carry on
By Andrew Orlowski . Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 14th April 2010 14:36 GMT

All's well at CRU. The University of East Anglia's scientific
enquiry into the Climategate affair, led by Lord Oxburgh, has
exonerated the staff involved.

After just 15 days on the job, Oxburgh has dismissed the charges in
a brisk five-page report. The academics under fire were the IPCC's
leading authorities on temperature reconstructions, and their work
was central to the claim that recent temperatures are anomalous.

Oxburgh finds space, however, to blame the Climatic Research Unit's
external critics for taking a "selective and uncharitable approach
to information made available by CRU". These critics failed to
account for the "difficult circumstances under which university
research is sometimes conducted".

However Oxburgh admits the enquiry team looked at the issue with one
eye shut. No critics of CRU's work, Stephen McIntyre or Doug Keenan,
were interviewed, and the enquiry admits "We have not exhaustively
reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work".

The only criticism is mild. The enquiry notes:

"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been
involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical. Under
such circumstances there must be an obligation on researchers to
document the judgemental decisions they have made so that the work
can in principle be replicated by others."

Oxburgh concludes: "We found a small group of dedicated if slightly
disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus
of public attention."

McIntyre calls the report "flimsy and embarrassing" and "a feeble
sleight-of-hand" in his initial commentary on Oxburgh's conclusion.
McIntyre says the conclusion that the team "regrettably" "neglected"
to indicate the divergence problem - when tree data disagrees with
the instrumental temperature record - is incorrect

"The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally,"
counters McIntyre.

Lord who?

The choice of Lord Oxburgh was questioned by critics, one of whom
compared it to "putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank".

Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies,
and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon
Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to
Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to
declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of
legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.

Oxburgh's is the second of two 'independent' enquiries commissioned
by the University. The other, led by Sir Muir Russell, continues.

You can download the Oxburgh report here. It won't take you long to
read. ®

What a joke! They should have worked with pro statisticians but they
did alright without!? No they didn't. In fact no-one knows whether
they did alright in their analysis, as we don't know what data thy
started with, and probably never will. Are these people plucking
conclusions from the air?

Hell, they will probably declare the hockey stick valid.

Actually reading the report I think they make an oblique comment about
the HS:

'Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for
producing
misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by
accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did
not
come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may
not
have been the best for the purpose.'

On 15 Apr, 05:52, "N0B@,Z0O" wrote:
Climategate: Oxburgh's "Trick To Hide the Trick."

14 Apr 2010

The Oxburgh report " is a flimsy and embarrassing *five pages

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/.../Report+of+the...

They did not interview me nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or
targets.

The committee was announced on March 22 and their "report" is dated April
12 - three weeks end to end - less time than even the Parliamentary
Committee.

Yes, I wouldn't even want to study the emails and data in less than
six months, maybe one year! I guess they did not consider that valid
evidence as it was 'stolen'?


They took no evidence.

Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on
CRUTEM.

Notably missing from the "sample" are their 1000-year reconstructions:

And the emails.


Jones et al 1998,

Mann and Jones 2003,

Jones and Mann 2004, etc.

They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents
of arbitrary adjustment ("bodging"), cherry picking and deletion of adverse
data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee
and the Muir Russell Committee.

I'll report on these issues later in the day as they'll take a little time
to review.

First, let's observe Oxburgh's trick to hide the "trick".

Long before Climategate, Climate Audit readers knew that you had to watch
the pea under the thimble whenever you're dealing with the Team. This is
true with Oxburgh of Globe International as well.

Oxburgh of Globe International alludes to the "trick..to hide the decline"
in veiled terms as follows:

"CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental
and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th
century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have
sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we find this regrettable,
we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined."

Without specifically mentioning the famous "trick .to hide the decline",
Oxburgh subsumes the "trick" as "regrettable neglect" by "IPCC and others".

But watch the pea under Oxburgh's thimble.

"The Oxburgh Report regrettably neglected to highlight the fact that CRU
scientists Briffa and Jones, together with Michael Mann, were the IPCC
authors responsible for this "regrettable neglect" in the Third Assessment
Report. They also regrettably neglected to report that CRU scientist Briffa
was the IPCC author responsible for the corresponding section in AR4. "

Oxburgh pretends that the fault lay with "IPCC and others", but this
pretence is itself a trick.

CRU was up to its elbows in the relevant IPCC presentations that
"regrettably neglected" to show the divergent data in their graphics.

It is also untrue that CRU authors, in their capacity as IPCC authors,
"regrettably neglected" to show the divergent data in the IPCC graphics.

The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally - see for example
IPCC and the Trick,

(http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/)

which show awareness on the part of CRU scientists that showing the decline
would "dilute the message" that IPCC wanted to send.

The eventual IPCC figure, as reported here on a number of cases, gave a
false rhetorical message of the veracity of the proxy reconstructions.

ClimatAudit readers are also well aware that IPCC and Briffa were
categorically asked by one AR4 reviewer (me) to disclose the divergent data.
CRU's Briffa refused, saying only that it would be "inappropriate" to show
the data in the graphic. They didn't "neglect" to show the divergent data
from the Briffa reconstruction.

This was a considered decision, carried out in AR4 despite pointed
criticism.

Yes, the decline had been disclosed in the "peer reviewed literature".
Indeed, that was how I became aware of the trick - long before Climategate
and why, as an AR4 peer reviewer, I asked that IPCC not use the trick once
again in AR4.

IPCC presentations are how the climate science community speaks to the
world.

Climate scientists, including CRU scientists, have a far greater obligation
of full, true and plain disclosure in IPCC reports than even the specialist
literature.

Oxburgh pretends that (partial) disclosure of adverse results by CRU in
specialist literature is sufficient. It isn't. There was a continuing
obligation to disclose adverse results in IPCC graphics.

CRU "scientists" acted as IPCC authors. The complaint about the trick arose
out of how CRU "scientists" carried out their duties as IPCC authors.

In this respect, the Oxburgh report is a feeble sleight-of-hand that in
effect tries to make the public think that the "trick" was no more than
"regrettable neglect" by the "IPCC and others" - nothing to do with CRU.

In other words, Oxburgh is using a trick to hide the "trick".

Trick me once, shame on you.

UPDATE:

The Daily Telegraph reports:

Professor Hand did say that "inappropriate methods" were used by a separate
university to draw up the infamous "hockey stick" graph showing the rise in
global temperatures over more than 1,000 years.

Uh, memo to Oxburgh.

CRU produced its own hockey stick graphs in Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones
2003, for example.

For some reason, Oxburgh and his associates "regrettably neglected" to
consider these articles.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/o...ide-the-trick/

Warmest Regards

Bon_0

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 15 Apr, 04:02, "James" wrote:
"Giga2" wrote in message





On 14 Apr, 16:27, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...gate_report/ht...[McIntyre]

Oxburgh blesses Climategate boffins
Keep on keeping calm, and carry on
By Andrew Orlowski . Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 14th April 2010 14:36 GMT

All's well at CRU. The University of East Anglia's scientific
enquiry into the Climategate affair, led by Lord Oxburgh, has
exonerated the staff involved.

After just 15 days on the job, Oxburgh has dismissed the charges in
a brisk five-page report. The academics under fire were the IPCC's
leading authorities on temperature reconstructions, and their work
was central to the claim that recent temperatures are anomalous.

Oxburgh finds space, however, to blame the Climatic Research Unit's
external critics for taking a "selective and uncharitable approach
to information made available by CRU". These critics failed to
account for the "difficult circumstances under which university
research is sometimes conducted".

However Oxburgh admits the enquiry team looked at the issue with
one eye shut. No critics of CRU's work, Stephen McIntyre or Doug
Keenan, were interviewed, and the enquiry admits "We have not
exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the
dendroclimatological work".

The only criticism is mild. The enquiry notes:

"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been
involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical.
Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on
researchers to document the judgemental decisions they have made
so that the work can in principle be replicated by others."

Oxburgh concludes: "We found a small group of dedicated if slightly
disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus
of public attention."

McIntyre calls the report "flimsy and embarrassing" and "a feeble
sleight-of-hand" in his initial commentary on Oxburgh's conclusion.
McIntyre says the conclusion that the team "regrettably"
"neglected" to indicate the divergence problem - when tree data
disagrees with the instrumental temperature record - is incorrect

"The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally,"
counters McIntyre.

Lord who?

The choice of Lord Oxburgh was questioned by critics, one of whom
compared it to "putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank".

Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies,
and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon
Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to
Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to
declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of
legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.

Oxburgh's is the second of two 'independent' enquiries commissioned
by the University. The other, led by Sir Muir Russell, continues.

You can download the Oxburgh report here. It won't take you long to
read. ®

What a joke! They should have worked with pro statisticians but they
did alright without!? No they didn't. In fact no-one knows whether
they did alright in their analysis, as we don't know what data thy
started with, and probably never will. Are these people plucking
conclusions from the air?

Hell, they will probably declare the hockey stick valid.

Actually reading the report I think they make an oblique comment about
the HS:

'Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for
producing
misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by
accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did
not
come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may
not
have been the best for the purpose.'
--
Fake but accurate.

On 15 Apr, 16:34, "James" wrote:
"Giga2" wrote in message



On 15 Apr, 04:02, "James" wrote:
"Giga2" wrote in message



On 14 Apr, 16:27, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...gate_report/ht....[McIntyre]

Oxburgh blesses Climategate boffins
Keep on keeping calm, and carry on
By Andrew Orlowski . Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 14th April 2010 14:36 GMT

All's well at CRU. The University of East Anglia's scientific
enquiry into the Climategate affair, led by Lord Oxburgh, has
exonerated the staff involved.

After just 15 days on the job, Oxburgh has dismissed the charges in
a brisk five-page report. The academics under fire were the IPCC's
leading authorities on temperature reconstructions, and their work
was central to the claim that recent temperatures are anomalous.

Oxburgh finds space, however, to blame the Climatic Research Unit's
external critics for taking a "selective and uncharitable approach
to information made available by CRU". These critics failed to
account for the "difficult circumstances under which university
research is sometimes conducted".

However Oxburgh admits the enquiry team looked at the issue with
one eye shut. No critics of CRU's work, Stephen McIntyre or Doug
Keenan, were interviewed, and the enquiry admits "We have not
exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the
dendroclimatological work".

The only criticism is mild. The enquiry notes:

"It is regrettable that so few professional statisticians have been
involved in this work because it is fundamentally statistical.
Under such circumstances there must be an obligation on
researchers to document the judgemental decisions they have made
so that the work can in principle be replicated by others."

Oxburgh concludes: "We found a small group of dedicated if slightly
disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus
of public attention."

McIntyre calls the report "flimsy and embarrassing" and "a feeble
sleight-of-hand" in his initial commentary on Oxburgh's conclusion.
McIntyre says the conclusion that the team "regrettably"
"neglected" to indicate the divergence problem - when tree data
disagrees with the instrumental temperature record - is incorrect

"The Climategate emails show that they did so intentionally,"
counters McIntyre.

Lord who?

The choice of Lord Oxburgh was questioned by critics, one of whom
compared it to "putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank".

Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies,
and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon
Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to
Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to
declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of
legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.

Oxburgh's is the second of two 'independent' enquiries commissioned
by the University. The other, led by Sir Muir Russell, continues.

You can download the Oxburgh report here. It won't take you long to
read. �

What a joke! They should have worked with pro statisticians but they
did alright without!? No they didn't. In fact no-one knows whether
they did alright in their analysis, as we don't know what data thy
started with, and probably never will. Are these people plucking
conclusions from the air?

Hell, they will probably declare the hockey stick valid.

Actually reading the report I think they make an oblique comment about
the HS:

'Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for
producing
misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by
accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did
not
come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may
not
have been the best for the purpose.'

--
Fake but accurate.

And if not accurate at least 'good' in that they serve the greater
purpose of 'saving the planet' from capitalism.