Konektions: The art of being everywhere / simultaneously - Benefits: Influence, Manipulation, Damage Control ... BP is THE case study for excellence and takes Konektions to heights not seen before, anywhere, at any time! Before this is over, their profits and bottom line will be stronger than ever.
IntraGroups Online Research: With the resignations (text below) removing potential conflicts of interest of the original members on the Review Board - Why was the BP Technical VP of Deepwater Development for the Gulf of Mexico allowed to continue to participate on the panel for the full 6 months of 2010? It also begs the questions - How could David Eyton give priority to his important US BP Gulf of Mexico responsibilities while also serving on the Review Board? Did he spend most of his work-related time in the US, or the UK? Did he ever visit the rig that blew, before the accident? Has he been there since? If yes, how many times? Why did he not resign from the panel on or after April 20? Why was he NOT asked to resign by Sir Muir Russell and the other 3 academic professors? Why has BP not fired him? Report published July 7 at 1pm GMT. Work in the UK by the 5-person panel was concentrated from January - July 2010 Rig blew April 20, 2010
From Review website (click above link)
15 February 2010
Allegations of bias against Review member rejected
On Friday February 12, allegations were raised that Professor Geoffrey Boulton's background and views affected his ability to be a member of the Review. These have been rejected by Sir Muir Russell and by Professor Boulton.
Professor Boulton said:
"At the Review press conference (on February 11), I pointed out that I had worked full-time in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA from its inception in 1968 to 1980, and that I had a part-time appointment between 1980 and 1986, whilst working primarily in the University of Amsterdam. Since then, I have had no professional contact with the University of East Anglia or the Climatic Research Unit.
"I was equally clear that although my research is not in the field of modern or recent climate change, I am familiar with its scientific basis and uncertainties surrounding it.
"I declared my current view of the balance of evidence: that the earth is warming and that human activity is implicated. These remain the views of the vast majority of scientists who research on climate change in its different aspects. They are based on extensive work worldwide, not that of a single institution.
As a sceptical scientist, I am prepared to change those views if the evidence merits it. They certainly do not prevent me from being heavily biased against poor scientific practice, wherever it arises."
Sir Muir Russell said:
"This Review must determine if there is evidence of poor scientific practice, as well as investigate allegations around the manipulation and suppression of data.
"As others have pointed out, it would be impossible to find somebody with the qualifications and experience we need who has not formed an opinion on climate change.
"I am completely confident that each member of the Review team has the integrity, the expertise, and the experience to complete our work impartially."
12 February 2010
Dr Philip Campbell withdraws from the Review
Sir Muir Russell has reluctantly accepted the resignation of Dr Philip Campbell, Editor of Chief of Nature, after a recording of an interview given by Dr Campbell to China Radio International (CRI) in December 2009 was alleged to raise doubts over his impartiality.
Dr Campbell said: "I made the remarks in good faith on the basis of media reports of the leaks. As I have made clear subsequently, I support the need for a full review of the facts behind the leaked e-mails. There must be nothing that calls into question the ability of the independent Review to complete this task, and therefore I have decided to withdraw from the team."
Sir Muir said: I have spoken to Philip Campbell, and I understand why he has withdrawn. I regret the loss of his expertise, but I respect his decision."
11 February 2010
INDEPENDENT CLIMATE CHANGE EMAIL REVIEW ANNOUNCES TEAM, WORKPLAN AND CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
The independent Climate Change Email Review today announced its membership, published its workplan and issued a call for submissions from interested parties. It also invited comments on the issues which it has identified for investigation.
Sir Muir Russell, chair of the review, made the announcement with other members at the Science Media Centre in London.
Other members of the team are: Professor Peter Clarke, Professor Geoffrey Boulton, Dr Philip Campbell, Professor Jim Norton, and David Eyton.
Sir Muir explained that the Review team had finished a preliminary appraisal of the evidence, and would now look at the issues in detail, as well as review submissions.
“The Review will investigate allegations arising from the series of hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit. We will investigate whether there is evidence of poor scientific practice and data management which could call CRU research into question. The Review is about scientific rigour and honesty, freedom of information procedures and data handling."
“The Review team has an exceptional range of scientific backgrounds and expertise, designed to ensure we can cover all the issues involved."
"However, it is not our role to re-appraise the CRU's scientific conclusions. Those will be examined by the Royal Society review announced today."
"We aim to reach preliminary conclusions during the Spring."
The deadline for submissions to the Review is 1 March 2010.
3 December 2009
Sir Muir Russell to head the Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
To read the University of East Anglia’s full press release on the announcement of the Review click here.