“Oxburgh’s 5 page Climategate book report gets a failing grade“. Oh, here’s a shocker. Anthony Watts tells us that the latest report on Climategate, by the Oxburgh Panel, is worthless. A whitewash!!!!
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, the denialist operation that is home to such notables as Ian Pilmer and Nigel Lawson, call it “Another Unsatisfactory Rushed Job“.
Steven McIntyre is still fixated on a certain word, he declares “Oxburgh’s Trick to Hide the Trick”.
Could it be because the report exonerates the Climate Research Unit and Dr. Phil Jones (emphasis mine)?
We saw 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. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.
Or because of how they describe the assaults of denialists like Steven McIntyre (emphasis mine)?
We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU. They seem also to reflect a lack of awareness of the ongoing and dynamic nature of chronologies, and of the difficult circumstances under which university research is sometimes conducted.
2012-07-19 Update: Norfolk police have called off their investigation for procedural reasons, but state:
“However, as a result of our inquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct inquiries. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”
This excerpt from The LA Times pretty much sums it up:
[“just plain nasty and ill-informed.” I like that. – Ben]
Re: The ‘citizen auditors’ F grade on IPCC. What Baloney. Anthony has copy-pasted an article scoring the IPCC reports on the percentage of references that are NOT from peer-reviewed literature. Anything under 60% merits an F.
Here is a typical analysis, with just 24% (12/50) of references from the ‘literature’.
But what’s this? Another 12 references are from other chapters of IPCC reports … that is, reviews of, er, peer-review literature. Yet other references are to meta-studies from reputable sources, e.g The IEA. And what’s this? ‘Gritsevsky, A., and N. Nakicenovic, 2002: Modelling uncertainty of induced technological change’ is not classed as peer-reviewed, because the citation is from a non-peer-reviewed journal, but the article was also accepted by the very much refereed Energy Policy and has been cited an impressive 131 times …
So much for ‘research’ – the ‘citizen auditors’ number is at best less than half the true figure. Epic fail. Note also that even on this deeply flawed methodology, the chapters from WG1 – The Physical Science – score a minimum of 80%, and mainly >90%.
Interesting though, that the IPCC report is marked down because not all the references are from peer-reviewed literature, implying this is a good way of establishing quality. I look forward to a falling off in the references to blog posts, opinion pieces, magazine articles ….. hah!
How foolish they look. They’ll have to move on eventually. All that remains over there are the loony rabble, apart from one or two brave stalwarts who inject a dose of sanity from time to time.
McIntyres obsession with divergence is hilarious.. the IPCC didn’t show the divergence so the total reconstruction, report etc is wrong..what else have the nasty scientists not shown? this ‘conspiracy logic’ seems to pervade WUWT.