"A panel of independent experts"

The BBC report that:

"A panel of independent experts has officially begun its inquiry into the "Climategate" affair.

The experts, headed by Sir Muir Russell, will investigate how e-mails from the UK's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) appeared on the web.

They will also consider if the e-mail exchanges between researchers show an attempt to manipulate or suppress data "at odds" with scientific practice. "

But then immediately have to admit that:

"even before the panel could start work, one of its members resigned.

Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief for Nature journal, stood down late on Thursday because of remarks he had made last year in the Chinese media in which he said the scientists mentioned in the e-mails had "behaved as researchers should". "

So if Dr Philip Campbell had not resigned would the BBC still have described him as unbiased?


Here's the original list of the 'independent experts' per the BBC:
* Geoffrey Boulton, general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Professor of Geology)
* Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief for Nature journal
* Professor Peter Clarke of the University of Edinburgh (a particle physicist by background, he now heads the e-Science Centre at Edinburgh)
* David Eyton, head of research and technology at BP
* Professor Jim Norton, vice president for the Chartered Institute for IT

So what do we know about these five figures, sorry four as Dr Campbell has already resigned. Surely the other four must be impeccably unbiased? After all the Russell Review website states this:

"Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at."

Hmm, the excellent Bishop Hill reports that: "Geoffrey Boulton is an ex-UEA School of Environment man." So that makes him really 'independent' to investigate alleged wrongdoing at an associated body based at the UEA! Here's Geoffrey Boulton discussing climate change:

"We have the evidence, we have a consensus on scientific interpretation, we have the investment, we know (Stern) that mitigation now rather than later is cheaper. But, we have not sorted out the politics and started to adapt behaviour to minimize risks. We cannot do this without public support. If we fail, we will be risking the consequences of catastrophic climate changes."

He sounds like someone with an open mind about Climate Change, does he not?


How about David Eyton of BP? That would be the same BP who helped set up the CRU would it? The same BP who state that

"BP is a strong supporter of cap and trade emissions trading, participating in the EU scheme and looking forward to the day when regional schemes are knitted together into a global system."

and who wrote

"The challenge of climate change requires policy development at all levels: global, national and local. Our work with Princeton is an example of BP's commitment to collaborative research, and has already provided a vital contribution to the pace of policy development. We trust that governments will be successful in reaching a consensus for significant action, and we are working to inform their actions based on our experience of low-carbon technologies and businesses.""

Bishop Hill also helpfully points out that "issues for examination" by the committee explicitly include this:

"The Team stresses that its remit does not involve re-evaluation of the scientific conclusions of the CRU work"

Finally Bishop Hill reveals some more about Professor Boulton:

"* spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
* works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team
* says the argument over climate change is over
* tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change
* believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050
* signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity
* could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger
* is quite happy to discuss "denial" in the context of the climate debate.*

The idea that this man has no preconception of global warming science and has no connections with the CRU is clearly risible.