For those who can get to London:

Quote:Discussing the 'Climategate' Affair and the CRU Inquiries

Speakers
* Stephen McIntyre (Canada)
* David Holland (UK)

Tuesday, 13 July 2010, 19:00 - 21:00
Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, 1 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DB

Seats are available on a first-come, first-served basis.
To register, please e-mail: info@thegwpf.org or phone 207 9306856

On 7 July, Sir Muir Russell will publish the findings of the Independent Climate Change Email Review into what is commonly known as the 'Climategate' Affair. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is holding a public meeting to assess the procedures, conclusions and implications of the Review and the lessons of Climategate.

Stephen McIntyre and David Holland are internationally recognised critics of the flawed expert advisory process that governments continue to rely on. Both are the subject of frequent references in the 'Climategate' emails (McIntyre is mentioned over 100 times) and both contributed written submissions of evidence to the Muir Russell inquiry. According to the BBC, McIntyre "arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit - but none of the CRU inquiries has contacted him for input."
The meeting will be chaired by Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

About the Speakers:

Stephen McIntyre -
Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian citizen, is a mathematical statistician and the most prominent critic of the so-called Hockey Stick graph. Since becoming involved with climate change issues some years ago, he has become a leading and internationally recognised critic first, of the handling of data and the treatment of evidence by prominent and influential climate scientists, and second, of flawed IPCC procedures. Besides his numerous publications, he has made a major contribution to the debate through his prizewinning blog, ClimateAudit.

David Holland -
David Holland is a retired engineer. He was a co-author of a leading critique of the Stern Review, and more recently has published a far-reaching criticism of IPCC methods and procedures.

Tempting, very tempting.

The likes of Monbiot, Black, Gray, Harrabin, etc should be forced to be there and actually listen. No doubt they'd still put a warm spin on it, but think how tortured they would be.

As someone noted at WUWT the address is very close to the Royal Society apparently.
I wonder if anyone from there will attend, they should also be forced to at least listen.

The report has arrived and is not exactly a greenwash, although close, as expected:

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Andrew Montford of Bishop Hill (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/) has been commissioned to investigate:

Quote:In response, the GWPF has announced that it has commissioned its own investigation into the way the three Climategate inquiries have been set up, how they were conducted an how they arrived at their conclusions.

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1204-...unced.html

There is an initial response from GWPF here:
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1205-russell...e-bus.html

Bishop Hill blog is also starting analysis.

I still have not read it, but for the first reactions I see in Twitter, it looks that the reasoning process is clonic to previous inquiries:

"They are honest thus, IPCC AR4 is valid".

This must be the same logic they use to make up their models.

University response to Sir Muir Russell report (UEA)

A "friendly" tweet:

@OnleastY Opacity of UEA's actions contributed to Climategate scandal, says Russell report http://cli.gs/S1PVv

I've not had time to read it all yet but from what I have seen so far, it is the usual spin, bad logic and evasion.

Maurizio Morabito covered yesterday´s McIntyre/Holland press conference. You can read it on http://twitter.com/mmorabito67 or:

Live Microblogging Of McIntyre and Holland At Climategate GWPF London Event

_____________________________

@guardianeco Our #climategate debate is just about to kick off - McIntre, Watson, Davies, Pearce, Keenan and Monbiot have all taken their seats
19 minutes ago via web
(july 14th; 20:30 +/-)

It'll be interesting to see how Monbiot spins it. There is one thing that is certain; he's not going to change his stance.

(07-14-2010 02:01 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how Monbiot spins it. There is one thing that is certain; he's not going to change his stance.

There´s still nothing in his website. He finished the debate by saying "An interesting and fiery debate and as usual we've got absolutely nowhere". But for the comments at Maurizio´s his behaviour was quite fair. I like this from the different take at Deltoid:

Quote:Keenen then claims that none of the evidence for AGW stands up to scrutiny and Piers Corbyn starts heckling.

Piers Corbyn gets the chance to ask a question, but ends up making a speech on how AGW is a fraud and it's really the Sun and the Moon that cause climate to change. They move to a different questioner. Corbyn continues to heckle and interrupt. Monbiot tells Corbin he'll have him ejected if he doesn't shut up.

Mr. Corbyn is terrific.

Harrabin makes a good point (~82 minutes) about the lack of accountability and responsibility.

(07-15-2010 12:30 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote:  Harrabin makes a good point (~82 minutes) about the lack of accountability and responsibility.

Q_C, do you have a link? I´m not able to find it :-)

Strogoff,

Sorry, the link is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/au...ils-debate

This one, from WUWT is very, very strange:

DOE Funding For CRU Placed On Hold

Quote:Muir Russell published his report earlier this month. It said that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists were not in doubt but criticised them for “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness”.

The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.

At this stage of the game I don't think the DoE will find anything wrong with the CRU. Besides, Obama wouldn't allow it!