From the Science and Technology committee of the UK Paliament press release here.
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Terms of Reference
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:
—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
—How independent are the other two international data sets?
The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.
Background
On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
Submissions
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:
Each submission should:
a)be no more than 3,000 words in length
b)be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c)have numbered paragraphs
d)include a declaration of interests.
A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Climatic Research Unit”. An additional paper copy should be sent to:
The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
Please also note that:
—Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
—Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
—Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
—Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.
Oral evidence
An evidence session will be announced in due course.
Press notices
22/01/10 Inquiry announced
h/t to Bishop Hill
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One whitewash coming up.
I presume that there will be independent submissions from both Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre…?
Whitewash?
Government and politicial back-down enabler?
Truthful, neutral look at the issues with honest hard hitting recommendations/sanctions for miscreants?
We shall see.
I do like the Science and Technology committee only accepting only Word document format no later than 2003.
PLEASE someone send them Mosher’s book, and print this out and send it as well:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
AFAIK, anyone can submit written evidence. There is nothing that I have found that says you have to be a citizen of the UK or be British. The following words are used: “Interested parties may then submit written evidence”.
According to 1, it sounds like UEA has to give up everything to the committee not just what’s already been disseminated. It could get interesting.
They’re off to a great start.
Just hope this doesn’t get abused.:
“If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.”
YES!
singularian (11:14:23) :
…I do like the Science and Technology committee only accepting only Word document format no later than 2003.
I noticed that too – and as someone who still uses Word 7 (it does everything I need, and I refuse to re-write macros just because Bill Gates wants more of my money), I think its an excellent position to take. Though what’s wrong with an rtf document?
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/science_technology_members.cfm
I’ve included a link to the membership of the committee. Unfortunately I think any meaningful investigation will get lost in the heat and debate of the General Election. (This must be held by early June at the latest).
If anyone wants to contact the MPs, I would make the following plea – be brief, be reasonable and to the point. Many MPs are proud of their independent mindset (of whatever party).
If anyone is wondering, I’m British, a “lukewarmer” and on the left of the political spectrum – sometimes it’s quite lonely there!
But will the BBC run this story?
A welcome development which the MSM will find hard to ignore. I wish I had more confidence that this will not be a whitewash, as most inquiries in recent times have been, eg numerous Iraq inquiries.
For those that don’t know much about UK politics, the Parliamentary Committees are probably the best thing about the Westminster system – they are usually free from party political bias and spin, and can ask tough questions of anyone called before them. The only problem is that the committees’ findings are usually completely ignored by the government/politicians in power. It will be interesting to seen how the BBC’s political correspondents cover this, as opposed to their environmental.
Sean O’Hare (11:08:14) :
One whitewash coming up.
Declared guilty before the trial even starts. And you guys accuse us of bias!
“singularian (11:14:23) :
[…]
I do like the Science and Technology committee only accepting only Word document format no later than 2003.”
Yeah that’s a good one. They stopped upgrading after Office 2003 and don’t know they can download a free viewer for later formats. After all, they’re the Science And Technology committee.
The wheels of justice grind slowly but as each of these processes move forward they will open more and more doors into what actually happened/is happening in the climate science community. I suspect the major players will get very little climate scince work done over then next year or two, they will have a full plate of tasks related to these inquiries and trying to protect their tattered reputations.
Lets hope that the weight of the evidence is sufficient to force a fair accounting of events rather than an attempt to “soften the blow” and any sort of white wash.
Larry
Congratulations to all those who exposed the great global climate scandal!
This investigation is a big step forward, even if the Science and Technology Committee tries to cover up the fraud and data manipulation.
As Richard Nixon belatedly learned, each cover-up moves us closer to a final moment of truth.
Again, congratulations to all!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
I wish they didn’t call the CRU emails “hacked” but I guess that’s the popular term now. :-/
“Calvin Ball (11:23:50) :
The Independent Review will:
1. […]
2. […]
3. […]
4. […]
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:
They’re off to a great start.”
=======================
That’s what they intend to accomplish. The questions are at the beginning of the memo.
—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
—How independent are the other two international data sets?
Calvin Ball (11:23:50) : | Reply w/ Link
” The Independent Review will:
1. […]
2. […]
3. […]
4. […]
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:”
They’re off to a great start.
Be fair. They would not ask you to read for them [1], that is their job exclusively. They would like a contribution to the other 3.
—How independent are the other two international data sets?
Select Committees are indeed the jewel in the Crown of the UK Parliament.
At last something is stirring in the heart of the British Establishment. I am quietly hopeful. The fact that they are even AWARE of the other datasets is encouraging!
This is the start. Internal investigations serve self interests. The first and massive issue is breaking the law and admitting to it in writing regarding FOIA requests. The second is destroying data. The third may be manipulation of data.
actually it says:
and then it says:
in order to answer the three questions.
I don’t really see a whitewash. This committee did not really have to institute the review process (although it would be interesting to find out what procedural route was followed to reach the decision, and who drove it.
If enough of the right people do the right stuff in making submissions, then it could get quite interesting,a nd leave the Committee with little room for manouvre. Requested inputs (1) and (3) hold quite a bit of promise to reveal the sorry state of the AGW edifice.
It would be a good thing if different contributors could address the implications for the validity of the science in ways that also touched the IPCC’s AR3 and AR4. A concise review (from the emails and computer code) of the hockey-stick saga would be good.
It would also be good for some teamwork that ensured that all of the emails were adequately analysed and important issues from all areas covered in submissions.