An FOI Ruling More Significant than the Russell Review
…
Paper: SCIENTISTS HID DOUBTS OVER GLOBAL WARMING
…
Climate Audit’s McIntyre: ‘You Can’t Be Serious!’ ‘Muir Russell says that they ‘have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made’
…
Climate Audit’s McIntyre: ‘Muir Russell’s [climategate report] contains many gaffes and errors’
…
Read all about it! Climate Depot’s Round up of Reactions to Muir Russell’s ‘Sham’ Climategate Report
For updated reactions see here.
Shameful Sham Climategate report urges ‘campaign to win hearts and minds’ to restore confidence in global warming science — ‘University of East Anglia’s enquiry into the conduct of its own staff at its Climatic Research — The most serious charge is poor communication — Sir Muir Russell even calls for ‘a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds’ to restore confidence in the team’s work’ (Full PDF report here.)
The Muir Russell Review gets basic IPCC info wrong! Pielke Jr.: ‘The idea that IPCC presents a ‘best estimate’ understanding based on views of a selected group of scientists is completely contrary to how IPCC characterizes its own work… ‘To suggest that the IPCC is “not to produce a review of the scientific literature” is just plain wrong’
Climate Audit’s McIntyre on Climategate report: It ‘adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia’ — ‘…a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh. Remarkably, the Muir Russell inquiry ruled on this issue without actually citing IPCC procedures…Instead of examining IPCC rules, they asked John Mitchell, the Review Editor, for his opinion. Mitchell, needless to say, was a Climategate correspondent, who gave untruthful answers when refusing David Holland’s FOI request for materials’
Climate Audit’s McIntyre: ‘Muir Russell’s [climategate report] contains many gaffes and errors, which are going to get placed into the sunshine over the next few days, as critics get a chance to work through the report. It’s too bad that Muir Russell decided that it was a good idea not to interview critics during the preparation of the report’
More Errors: Muir Russell writes that Oxburgh inquiry looked at the science. Lord Oxburgh has specifically stated that his inquiry did not look at the science’ — ‘An inquiry that doesn’t look at the science cannot understand Climategate’ — ‘Nor did the Parliamentary sub-committee’s one day hearing. Nor did either of the Penn State investigations [look at the science].’ ‘But in terms of making this issue go away, which is the obvious goal of all these investigations, it failed to do what it was meant to do…without looking at the science, they didn’t look at Climategate’
Meteorologist Watts: Muir Russell Climategate report is ‘another apologist who doesn’t …
‘The subjects of their criticism were not invited, nor were climate scientists critical of their behavior’
…
Shameful Sham Climategate report urges ‘campaign to win hearts and minds’ to restore confidence in global warming science
…
Climate Audit’s McIntyre on Climategate report: It ‘adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia’
…
Meteorologist Watts: Muir Russell Climategate report is ‘another apologist who doesn’t ask relevant questions of both sides, only one side’
…
More Errors: Muir Russell writes that Oxburgh inquiry looked at the science. Lord Oxburgh has specifically stated that his inquiry did not look at the science’
…