Talk:Ronald Oxburgh, Baron Oxburgh

Untitled
Added some information on Oxburgh from: http://www.iit.edu/business/seminars/2006/oxburgh/.

I think the title should be just Ronald Oxburgh - it's simpler.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 05:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The title is correct. See [] for usage.  Yopienso (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Balance
I notice that the paragraph on the CRU inquiry devotes just one brief sentence to the result but two sentences to a quite detailed account of alleged conflict of interest. These charges (according to the sources cited) come from climate skeptics, and were not taken seriously and had no adverse effect on the outcome of the report or its reception by the mainstream. Indeed one of our sources for the accusations is an article by Christopher Booker, who has pushed the false accusations hard in his own writings. I think editors of this article should examine the presentation and, if they find it to be unbalanced, fix it. Tasty monster (=TS ) 12:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the paragraph is incomplete; if anyone wants to fill out more details on the report before I get around to it, please do. Meanwhile, I can use a stopgap measure and put Oxburgh's affiliations in a paragraph about his achievements and positions.  We cannot write climate skeptics out of the picture;  there would be no controversy nor investigation without them.  I gave the Booker article not as a source for criticism, but for membership in GLOBE.  Here is an excellent bio written well before any of this came up:  http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/Graduation/82477.htm

And here is a good article about the report: http://www.economist.com/science-technology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15905891  Note the importance it gives to the criticism.

I had intended a sentence testifying to Oxburgh's eminent credentials and knowledge of the situation. Again, anyone may please continue this "start" article. Yopienso (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Economist piece mentions the skeptic accusations up front but makes light of them. We don't have room for that line of subtlety in an encyclopedia but we must be faithful to our sources (and no source with much credibility seriously doubts Ron Oxburgh's fitness).

I don't want to write the skeptics out of the picture--I hope that was plain from my first comments. I want the comments of skeptics to be identified as such and not given undue attention. I thought there was a tendency to make a meal out of the accusations in this article which has been absent from mainstream coverage. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No worry, Tony--I've no axe to grind. I think we both envision the same article.

The Economist devotes 7.5/20 lines of its opening paragraph (as displayed on my computer--if yours displays differently, the ratio will be the same--about two fifths) to critics. Paragraph 5 deals exclusively with bloggers, critics, and skeptics, noting Dr. Hand's admiration for Steve McIntyre's "meticulous work." The 6th paragraph mentions critics again and offer Hand's remedy: knock their heads together! :D The final line quite amusingly makes light of criticism of sloppiness. None of this criticism, however, mentions Oxburgh's alleged conflict of interest, so I don't see it belongs in an article about him.

I've added a footnote from The Times about the COI. May add a few more feathers to his cap soon. Yopienso (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added quite a bit and done some rearranging. Re. the CRU report, I left "The report,[11]  released 14 April, 2010, exonerated the CRU scientists of malpractice," as it was, except for providing a footnote to the PFD of the report.  Since the article is about Oxburgh and not the report, I felt it best not to go into its details.  The alleged COI is about the man, so I felt it did belong in the article.  East Anglia's statement should deflect any undue weight from Oxburgh.  All reference to the CRU controversy is contained in 6 lines, which I consider fair in the light of his history and current events.  What do you think?  Yopienso (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

May, 2010
I've put the quote from the Oxburgh report inside quotation marks rather than leaving it italicized. Also, I removed "(for example, he is an ex-chair of Shell)" since that is not one of the businesses that stand to profit from climate change legislation. Proper examples are Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Falck Renewables, Climate Change Capital, and D1 Oils. I didn't feel it necessary to explain that in the article. Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can't cope with the obvious counter, don't put the charge in William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Here are mine:


 * Your parenthetical addition was awkward.


 * Oxburgh left Shell five years ago, or at least left his post as chairman.


 * The businesses that "stand to profit" are not in oil, but in alternative energy, i.e., the wind and biodiesel businesses he is actively engaged in. "Oxburgh has links to groups that will profit from policies to tackle global warming, which critics argue is a conflict of interest."


 * The concluding quote from the UEA wrt the selection of Oxburgh to the panel is essential to balance the charge of COI. Yopienso (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Among Lord Oxburgh's other involvements that are profiting from climate policy is the fact that he sits on the board of Deutsche Bank . This bank has a Green portfolio in excess of 60 billion dollars. This bank also profits from carbon trading. Clearly, he has a vested interest in AGW and only gives fuel to the skeptics that were not at all surprised by the results of his "investigation" nor the casual treatment of the destruction of taxpayer funded raw data after repeated FOI request. You will note that Dr. R. K. Pachauri Chairman, Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change also sits on this same board along with others in a position to influence government policy. These facts along with ideological collusion from information sources that refuse to give time and space to them, "self-investigating" institutions that also control what is peer-reviewed and recieve grant funding along with the fear in scientist from career devastating instant personal attack by questioning status quo only give fodder to AGW skeptics. I doubt the skepticism will subside until extensive, undeniably independent studies. But funding for such from governments or any other source would instantly come under attack from one camp or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiperspective (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ronald Oxburgh, Baron Oxburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060807000723/http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/Graduation/82477.htm to http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/Graduation/82477.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223044726/http://www.d1plc.com/news.php?article=113 to http://www.d1plc.com/news.php?article=113
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818211305/http://www.ccsassociation.org.uk/about_ccsa/staff.html to http://www.ccsassociation.org.uk/about_ccsa/staff.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405040919/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/info/30310/honorary_graduates/250/lord_oxburgh_of_liverpool to http://www.leeds.ac.uk/info/30310/honorary_graduates/250/lord_oxburgh_of_liverpool/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)