'an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh'

The BBC joyously reported that:

'There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the "Climategate" affair.

This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit.

It began its review after e-mails from CRU scientists were published online.'

Of course the 'independent' panel was nothing of the sort, as I have previously blogged, so the conclusions are hardly surprising. However the BBC have not reported the whole story. They do manage to hide this

'Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.'

near the bottom of the piece. The spin continues with this:

'Professor Hand said that the CRU scientists did not use "the best statistical tools for their studies" but that this had made not significant difference to their conclusions.'

Meanwhile Steve McIntyre writes:

'The BBC reports that Lord Oxburgh of Globe International is to report his report on CRU science, perhaps tomorrow. The panel was first announced on March 22, 2010 – see here. No terms of reference were disclosed then, nor, to my knowledge, have they been disclosed subsequently.

Harrabin says that “members of the panel are said to have cross-examined CRU researchers for a total of 15 man-days”.

To my knowledge, they have not interviewed any critics of CRU or targets of the Climategate emails.'

That's odd so have the 'independent' panel interviewed anyone other than CRU researchers?

Steve McIntyre also writes:

'The Oxburgh report ” is a flimsy and embarrassing 5-pages.

They did not interview me (nor, to my knowledge, any other CRU critics or targets). The committee was announced on March 22 and their “report” is dated April 12 – three weeks end to end – less time than even the Parliamentary Committee. They took no evidence. Their list of references is 11 CRU papers, five on tree rings, six on CRUTEM. Notably missing from the “sample” are their 1000-year reconstructions: Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, etc.)

They did not discuss specifically discuss or report on any of the incidents of arbitrary adjustment (“bodging”), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data, mentioned in my submissions to the Science and Technology Committee and the Muir Russell Committee.

...

Update 9.40 am. The Daily Telegraph reports:

Professor Hand did say that “inappropriate methods” were used by a separate university to draw up the infamous “hockey stick” graph showing the rise in global temperatures over more than 1,000 years.

Uh, memo to Oxburgh. CRU produced its own hockey stick graphs in Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, for example. For some reason, Oxburgh and his associates regrettably neglected to consider these articles.'

I get the feeling that Steve McIntyre is worth keeping an eye on in this regard as might be Bishop Hill.