Oxburgh's terms of reference

I'm going to go through the video again and make a more considered analysis of what was said. This first post relates to the initial exchanges between the committee chairman, Andrew Miller, and Edward Acton.

Miller asks Acton about the terms of reference for Lord Oxburgh's report and asks if these were changed. He notes that the old committee were told that Oxburgh would assess the science ("an external appraisal of the science itself") but that Oxburgh subsequently said this was not the case, citing the UEA press release of 22 March ("an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications"). The question rather seems to miss the point, since neither UEA's evidence or the press release make it clear that the committee was only looking for evidence of deliberate wrongdoing.

Acton's reply is that the terms were not changed and that the purpose was to "assess the science and see if there was anything wrong" - words he used in the original hearings. This phrase could mean anything. He then quotes the original S&TC report, which asked the Oxburgh panel to determine if the work of CRU had been "soundly built" and says that this is what he meant - "was it scientifically justified". He goes on to say that Oxburgh notes that the unit's work was indeed "scientifically justified".

It should be noted, however, that the line from the report Acton quotes concludes a paragraph discussing the need for the unit's work to be based on "a solid foundation of excellent, peer reviewed science", so I think it's fair to say that the committee were talking about the quality of the science. As we know, the Oxburgh panel only looked for evidence of deliberate wrongdoing and didn't assess the quality of the science.

However, instead of addressing the discrepancy between what Oxburgh actually did (look for evidence of deliberate wrongdoing) and what UEA told the committee (assess the science and see if there was anything wrong) he obfuscates, by introducing the idea that some people might have thought that Oxburgh was going to assess the whole of climatology, and then launches into a preprepared spiel on the EPA report and an NAS report.

So at the end of the first exchange, we have no explanation of why there was no assessment of the quality of CRU's science.

(Readers have noted that the EPA concluded that CRU's input to climate science was sound because Oxburgh had exonerated them. It would be good to get confirmation of this, because we would then clearly have a circular argument).

Comments

[Edvin]

Some background:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/

and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science

[Steve2]

These links show that the EPA consider Oxburgh and to have confirmed the "scientific rigour" among other things:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/preface.html

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
EPA's Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration

2.Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel
Published on April 14, 2010
Referred to in the volumes as: “the Scientific Appraisal Panel review”

The Panel was set up by the University of East Anglia in consultation with the Royal Society to assess the integrity of the research published by CRU in light of various external assertions. The Panel was asked to address criticisms regarding whether climatic data had been dishonestly selected, manipulated and/or presented to arrive at pre-determined conclusions.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/response-decision.pdf

Inquiries from the UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, the University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel, the Pennsylvania State University, and the University of East Anglia, Russell Panel,3 all entirely independent from EPA, have examined the issues and many of the same allegations brought forward by the petitioners as a result of the disclosure of the private CRU e-mails. These inquiries are now complete. Their conclusions are in line with EPA’s review and analysis of these same CRU e-mails

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume3.html

The Scientific Appraisal Panel review examined criticism toward CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it” (Oxburgh, 2010).

[martyn]

{snip]

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

"scientific rigour" or "scientific rigour mortis"?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

This is part of the brief for Oxburgh

"....we decided to augment the Muir Russell review with an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment."

Prof Davies said: “Our concern has been to bring together a distinguished group of independent scientists who understand the difference between assertion and evidence, and are familiar with using the latter to judge the validity of conclusions arising from science research. The panel members have the right mix of skills to understand the complex nature of climate research and the discipline-based expertise to scrutinise CRU’s research. How they do this will be entirely down to the panel.

The last sentence seems (as far as I can recall, but I believe the details were reported here) to be at odds with the more narrow brief that Oxburgh thought he had been given.

[James P]

Somewhat tangential, but it seems that the UEA are still helping the government in the war on GHG's:

Strongly worded link!

[golf charley]

Steve2
Thanks for that. So no one, has ever checked the science of UEA / CRU. The US say the UK did. The UK say the US did.

But no one ever has. Why?

What would someone find out, if someone, even anyone, actually checked the science.

I hope the MP's realise that UEA are simply sticking two fingers up, and take appropriate action.

Based on the lies coming from other countries, the first target should be the temperature record, unless of course anyone else knows better

[RoyFOMR]

Most of the "Science" appears to be self- referential and circumscribed by "peer-review"
Expertise seems to be divided between the empiricists, who study real-world data, and computer-aided projectionists whom seem happy to replay box office hits, over and over again!
The former have doubts about the data, the latter have no doubts at all.
Data are dangerous. Fantasy and Data are incompatible until homogenised!
And that's where the CRU comes into its own.

[Tony Hansen]

Almost sounds like they were not sure what they were looking for, but are absolutely confident that they didn't find it.

[Dung]

The CRU panel's testimony is littered with comments such as "Ok what we were asked to do was "X" but we thought it would be far more appropriate if we did "Y". As far as I know nobody asked them to make these judgements?
People keep quoting the brief for the Oxburgh inquiry. Folks Oxburgh told SM that there was no written brief.
Only recently did they discover they had a photographic memory and could have answered Steve's request (if they has the slightest interest in being open, honest and helpful).

[Steve2]

Golf charley
There's a lot of material there in the EPA stuff that is new to me, from what I can see the EPA deal with a number of complaints from several different organisations and states arguing against the EPA Endangerment Finding. It seems the EPA broadly took a reactive role searching for flaws in the source of complaints enough to refute them rather than proactively search for any information.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume3.html

We show throughout this RTP document multiple examples where petitioners have resorted to hyperbole, broadly impugned the ethics and scientific integrity of climate scientists in general, and characterized actions as “falsification” and “manipulation” with no basis or support. As we reviewed the many footnotes in their documents, we found an inordinate reliance on blogs, news stories, and literature that is neither peer-reviewed nor accurately summarized in their petitions.

But it seems to me, for example, that the "hide the decline" issue is palmed off as being dealt with by Oxburgh. This is the only mention I can find after the criticisms of the RSC is cited by a complainant the EPA respond (my bold):

In contrast to the general statements from the Institute of Physics, RSC, and RSS, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigation examined written and oral evidence from numerous witnesses on both sides of the issue and examined the facts of the issues. Their report made the following broad conclusions:

* 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, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.
* In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid (UK House of Commons Science Technology Committee, 2010b).

[Martin Brumby]

Hang on, I thought Acton said the EPA carried out a review of the emails "in forensic detail"?

Perhaps he meant to say that they looked forensically at those emails which had passed peer-review?