UK Parliament to investigate Climategate and CRU data issues

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: http://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

About these ads

138 thoughts on “UK Parliament to investigate Climategate and CRU data issues

  1. 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.

  2. 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”.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.”

  6. 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?

  7. 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!

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Sean O’Hare (11:08:14) :
    One whitewash coming up.

    Declared guilty before the trial even starts. And you guys accuse us of bias!

  11. “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.

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. “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?

  15. 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.

  16. —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!

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

    actually it says:

    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.

    and then it says:

    The Independent Review will:

    1. [...]
    2. [...]
    3. [...]
    4. [...]

    in order to answer the three questions.

  19. 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.

  20. Andrew P (11:43:36) :

    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.

    Completely agree, you just have to read the report they did on the Damien Green MP mis-arrest for using leaked info embarassing to the Govt that was reported as being a National Security issue.

  21. An interesting development indeed – at the very least we will have:

    a) this reported in the MSM – for them not to report parliamentary process will be a very clear marker of bias;
    b) an eventually public record of what the key people have to say on this matter.

    Also given its an election year; it might not be the whitewash that people think it will be.

    BTW see my weblink for my thoughts on this matter

  22. All this time I thought that was Lord Monckton’s portcullis! Hm!

    Whose coat of arms is the billious balloon girl I always see in the heading?

  23. [snip - even though I disagree with Dr. Hansen actions and conclusions, I will NOT have you smear him with the label you applied, even in jest. Don't post that again - Anthony]

  24. Believe me this is the first serious inquisition into this whole sordid affair on this side of the pond. At last we are waking from our slumber. There will be some very worried people over here – and so they should be.

    The tide is turning – there is a barely suppressed anger in this country. Quite frankly a lot of people have had enough of being lied to and feeling cheated all the time. It is time to redress the balance.

    Next the EU.

  25. “…to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…”

    Is there any manipulation or suppression of data that is not at odds with acceptable scientific practice?

  26. “…and any other information held at CRU…”

    This enables a full fledged fishing expedition. Managerial, Financial, Security, Collaboration, Compliance, Parking, you name it; if they want they can look in the fridge for the expiry date on the meatloaf.

    And since this: “Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings…”, covers 100% of their purpose as an organization, anything goes

  27. PaulH>> I believe “hacked” can be used even if someone on the inside leaked them. From my knowledge, most “hacks” are made possible, intentionally or unintentionally, by employees (or the likes) inside the organisations being hacked.
    It’s usually much easier to bribe, trick, threaten or whatever an employee to give you access than to actually break in through a network.

    Anyway, great news that things are finally moving! :)

  28. Tom in Texas>> “Is there any manipulation or suppression of data that is not at odds with acceptable scientific practice?”

    Good question! :)

  29. This is very good news for the anti-CAGW camp and shows that the Climategate issue has gone way beyond the ‘sweep it under the carpet’ stage – which many of the MSM tried to do.

    It is also significant that the key question about the claimed ‘independence’ of other temperature data-sets is going to be aired, which will be where things really fall apart.

    This puts the finishing touch to what has already been a good week for sceptics :-)

  30. Friends:

    I am the author of an email among those hacked or leaked from CRU. It concerns my complaint that ‘the Team’ blocked publication of a paper I authored and that had 18 other co-signatories.

    That paper showed the HADCRUT, GISS and GHCN data sets of global temperature time series contain spurious trends of unknown magnitude (where spurious means different from reality) and, therefore, those data sets do not indicate the rate of change to mean global temperature over the twentieth cntury.

    The matter is discussed on another thread of this web site where I copy the pertinent email at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/

    My first comment on the matter in that thread is at (14:07:21) on 11.12.2009.
    And my later comments on that same thread respond to questions of the matter.

    I intend to make a submission to the Select Committee and to copy that submission to my MP.

    Richard

  31. Climategate. The story that keeps giving and giving.

    Who would have thought we sceptics would be here 6 months ago?

    It ain’t over yet though.

  32. My biggest worry in all of this is that the original raw unadjusted climate data has been compromised. In another thread (here or Climate Audit) I read rumors that the original log books have been mouldering or improperly archived while this cabal is busily adjusting the “unadjusted” stored data, baking cooling into the earlier warm data series without properly noting when the data has been adjusted, etc..

    It is troubling enough if they have been tampering with the source data to advance their policy agendas, but science will ultimately out when the machinations are discovered. But, if they’re actively allowing original data to be lost to cover their tracks (either in the UK or in the US), then it’s a crime against science.

  33. Select Committees (SCs) are where much of the serious work of the UK’s parliament gets done. It might not be saying much but, arguably, they represent the institution at its best. Their conduct contrasts sharply with the often childish behaviour one sees in in the main chamber.

    The “Party Whip” system (which exerts pressure on MPs, at times quite brutally, to vote for their own party on key issues) does not apply. The rules as to who sits on SCs are strict: no front-bench MPs (i.e. in government or leading opposition roles) or with a vested interest can sit on them. Although not immune to pressure, SCs tend to attract at least some experienced and ornery MPS with no (or at least no more) ministerial ambition.

    Naughty boys and girls in government and public life do not welcome a summons to an SC. Poor old Prof Jones and his friends are probably having one or two sphincter-flexing moments as you read this. Or they could be in for a shock.

    The Conservative Party is certain to win the imminent election. What makes things interesting is that the SC’s inquiry will take place in the context of the beginnings (the green shoots, even) of unease in the party over “climate change” and over-greening of the party line (beyond the limits of good taste to the point where they may have to do something really, really green).

    The election (after which new SCs are formed) might cause the inquiry to fall before it reports. However, an SC inquiry’s work is usually open to public scrutiny and the taking of oral evidence is scheduled to precede any likely election date so it may not matter if it doesn’t get round to reporting.

    As I’m sure everyone now knows, the University of East Anglia’s “independent” but behind-closed-doors review into, well, misconduct at the University of East Anglia that might affect its future funding is being chaired by one Sir Russell Muir.

    Many observers argue that the independence of the “review” is open to question on account of Russell’s poor record in recent years and because he acts as an advisor to a large energy utility, ScottishPower, that has an explicit interest in the “climate change” agenda. (It funded the distribution of Al Gore’s dreadful film to Scottish schools though, to be fair, before Russell’s appointment to its Advisory Panel.)

    They therefore fear a whitewash. However, if evidence presented to the SC is already in, or is likely soon to be in, the public domain, that becomes a little bit harder to carry off no matter tightly they lock doors on the UEA campus or however much Norfolk’s finest give the old One-Two to its IT staff.

    Phil and crew could be, as they say, living in interesting times.

  34. I just thought I’d say, that it won’t help us out at all for the UK Parliament to be bombarded by 100s or 1000s of papers that contain lots of factual error, state unverifiable opinions, are worded poorly or use improper grammar/spelling.

    I would suggest that unless your thoughts are 100% bulletproof and you are able to word them in such a way that an uninformed person could understand, that you refrain from submitting as you will only water down what the truly knowledgable people have to say. I would think that a few submissions from the most knowledgable skeptics would be able to voice all of our concerns.

  35. RichardJ

    Ah… another left wing climate sceptic! Thought I was the only one. I’m still trying to understand the political polarity of climate change and why I find myself consorting with Big Oil loving UKIP apologists, while the rest of the lefty veggie pinko commie hippies all seem to enjoy the “we’re going to drown” horror stories of the warmists. Can you explain how it got this way?

  36. Richard S Courtney,

    “I intend to make a submission to the Select Committee and to copy that submission to my MP.”

    Very good and well done. Things are beginning to move forward. Some other possible participants come to mind: Steve M, Hans Von Storch, Pat Michaels, Dave Douglass. They have all been wronged by this cabal and all have revealing stories to tell. Between them they can shine a big spotlight into the dark pit at CRU.

  37. keith (12:16:42) :

    You suggest:

    “An interesting development indeed – at the very least we will have:

    a) this reported in the MSM – for them not to report parliamentary process will be a very clear marker of bias”

    I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is not true.

    If you doubt my claim that your suggestion is not true then consider what happened to the Report concerning global warming from the Lord’s Select Committee on economic Affairs.

    That All-Party UK House of Lords Select Committee report that said the science of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) is flawed, that the IPCC so-called scientific reports are biased, and that cost/benefit did not seem to warrant constraints of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. That report can be seen at

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf

    So, what was the reaction of the MSM to that Select Committee Report?
    They ignored it.

    But the UK Government could not ignore it and had to be seen to respond to it. So, what did UK Government do in response that Select Committee Report? They commissioned Sir Nicholas Stern to assess costs if all worst case scenarios for AGW were to come to pass. He did as he was commissioned, and his report has been used by the the UK Government as a smokescreen to hide from attention the House of Lords Select Committee Report.

    The Stern Report can be seen at

    http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm

    So, what was the reaction of the MSM to the Stern Report?
    They trumpeted it.

    But the Stern Report has had much criticism, for example see

    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061104_stern.pdf

    and

    http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/stern_050307.pdf

    Indeed, the Stern Report reaches its conclusions by adopting the unreasonable (some would say ridiculous) use of near zero discount rate.

    So, what was the reaction of the MSM to criticism of the Stern Report?
    They ignored it.

    Richard

  38. Right.

    Ignore the fact that an FOIA request was being/had been refused and what appears to be the bulk of the file collection bearing the most incriminating of material was spirted out the back door …

    Right.

    .
    .

  39. Actually, a finding that there was serious and significant manipulation of the science might give many AGW leaning politicians a viable exit strategy for extricating themselves from the grasp of the AGW followers and the ruinous policies they may have enacted and or planned.

    ______________________________________________________________________

    Something like this me culpa:

    “I stand before you as an elected representative of the people. I am a politician, not a scientist. I therefore had to rely on the veracity, honesty and integrity of scientists to help formulate the best possible policies to stop human-induced climate change, something I was assured was settled science. That sacred trust was broken by scientists who were not faithful to the basic tenants of scientific discipline. As any good leader would be expected to do, I acted in good faith in response to what I was led to believe was a crisis of epic proportions. I acted in compliance with what my oath of office demanded, in the best interests of the people, on the best information given me by the consensus of the scientific community. That information has since been proven to be patently false. I had no way of knowing this; I was duped like everyone else.

    I plead guilty to discharging my duties as an elected representative of the people by doing everything I could do to to protect and serve their best interests, according to the laws of the land and of my office. I hope you will forgive me.”
    ______________________________________________________________________

    Don’t know about the Brits, but here in the USA this sort of contrition, if given somberly and appearing heartfelt, plays pretty darned well to the voters.

  40. Perhaps another positive with real time dividends…..If I’m one of the investigators at Penn State, my back just straightend on hearing of an investigation of the CRU with the power of a national government.

  41. Veronica (13:14:14)

    Big Oil, Nuclear and Food to Ethanol actually fund the CRU, so you are not so different from the ‘rest of the lefty veggie pinko commie hippies’. It is just that most of them do not realize what they are actually following.


    At the bottom of this page

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
    It includes:

    British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
    The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
    Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’
    UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
    Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
    Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
    KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’

    But some people choose not to look.

  42. “Ah… another left wing climate sceptic! Thought I was the only one. ”

    Nope. And I lean so far I sometimes fall over.

  43. I say that if they fail to provide any data saying it’s been lost or the dog ate it ect ( all findings should be concidered null and void) esp those used in peer reviewed journals or by COP 15 officials and especially al gore.

  44. (I intend to make a submission to the Select Committee and to copy that submission to my MP.)

    Sweet!!!! i was reading it last night and found myself getting ver agitated at Mr Manns actions reguarding the peer review process almost to the point of disbelief that someone could be that shallow and self serving.

    This problem really needs to be fixed for the sake of the scientific community and science itself, mann failed to adhere to it’s princibles and ethics and should be exiled from his profession imo.

  45. while its only a detail, and probably won’t be at heart of this Committee’s conerns, what I’d like to see highlighted in this enquiry is what is to me the major science-process-abuse of Jones et al (all other AGW-ers), the propsition ‘peer-reviewed = true’. Actually, peer-reviewed = worth publishing, might turn out to be rubbish, might not.

  46. B. Smith

    I think a lot of sceptics, including many posting here, were either convinced of or accepting of AGW on the assumption that we were being told the truth. I certainly went along in a general way without buying into the full alarmist case because I have long been aware of earlier historical warm periods.

    In religion a new convert or somebody who has recanted an earlier belief is often the most strident in opposing what he formerly espoused. I should not be surprised to see some of that in the next few years.

  47. You all seem to have overlooked the Noble Lord Monckton’s possible contribution to this enquiry. Given his erudition, eloquence and thorough knowledge of AGW and its ramifications, not to mention his intimate knowledge of the British Parliamentary system and its politics, he is more than ideally placed to drop not a few petards into the mix.

    I can’t imagine Our Lord passing up such an opportunity to sparkle.

  48. Veronica, your neuroses and identity crisis are not a concern of this forum. UKIP supporters have nothing for which ‘apologise': if electors wish to vote for a party which is committed to getting us out of the EU, and to exposing the AGW scam, then they will vote UKIP – end of story.

    Matt is correct: tempting though it is to bombard the Committee with submissions, esp if any of us is a constituent of any of these MPs, we must leave that to those sceptics who have been involved in the research (or scientists qualified to comment on it) and who can give chapter and verse on specific manipulations and abuses (if any).

    We must hope that there are sufficient members of the Committee with the intelligence and scientific knowledge to understand the very complex matters , which have taken most of us many motnhs if not years to grasp. A scatter-gun approach will not help them to reach such an understanding: less in this case will definitely be more

  49. Re the mea culpa:

    The Australian Prime Minister added that he deliberately ignored any contrary advice as the policy prescriptions were going to deliver his government an enormous tax increase. In addition he said that he abused dissenters by saying that they failed to take into consideration the futures of their children and grand children.

    He then added that he has come to the realisation that the decisions that governments make on matters that they know nothing about can have a catastrophic effect on their citizens and from this day forward he will be limiting the purview of the government to the protection of the lives, liberties and property of its citizens.

    As he penned this apology the RAPS (Royal Australian Pigs Squadron) left the tarmac.

  50. I think these are very interesting developments. The questions, the public statement, the openness to outside input are huge advances on the UEA enquiry, or at least its appearance, with its – what – “domestic terrorism” squad on the job.

    Though I’m really grateful to Richard Courtenay for his historical input (very revealing) I disagree with his conclusions. I think times are changing. Ten years ago there was far more room for genuine concern and a reasonable desire to “face the worst”; there was also far less research racketeering on the back of hyped scares. Not that the former was totally wise nor that the latter was totally absent; it’s a subtle shift. Anthony Watts’ success here is clear witness to the fact that people want truth and care about integrity in Climate Science… And Climategate means that we are now fighting the battles for true Science with at least the possibility of winning the war.

    Deadline 10 February. H’mmm.

  51. I want it televised. I want to see jones briffa and the rest sweat under the evidence and probing qs of the committee. However the three main parties are all pro agw and the right qs will not be asked. The bankers took a beating from the sc, blair/brown will take a beating, the election will distract the voters as I said all parties are pro agw. Nobody( well very few) will take any notice.

  52. I read the comments above on “whitewash” and they seem extremely premature. Can I please assure you that I have corresponded personally with some of those of the committee and I have been much reassured by their attitude that they are genuinely determined to investigate impartially.

    Lets put it this way – this committee have themselves decided to investigate – so lets assume good faith and work with this committee by providing as much well written and well sourced material as possible.

  53. Wouldn’t have been easier to have opened a Weblog that was open to the world? What a waste of perfectly good trees.

  54. Hooray and damn well about time. Letting the institutions investigate themselves is lunacy. It’s time for the U.S. Congress and other national legislative bodies to do the same.

  55. What do we want more!
    This is a great step forward and an opportunity that will be used by Lord Monckton.

    It will be harder for other Governments to say no to a similar investigation.

    Congratulations to the UK.

  56. Veronica>> I’m not left wing, but I believe I can explain how it got this way anyhow. :)

    Die Grüne, the German “Green Party” was founded by and assimilated a huge part of the extreme left supporters from the 60s/70s. You know, the ones that supported Rote Arme Fraktion (Baader Meinhof).
    That’s where it started, and as extreme leftist ideologies became more and more unpopular during the 70s/80s, culminating in the breakdown of the European communist states and the revelations thereafter, more and more leftists saw fitting to assimilate ideas about “environmental justice” along with “economic justice” and eventually this all merged into “climate justice”. After all, climate does encompass just about everything on our earth, so there really is no contradiction. :)
    Anyone can embrace the “fight for the climate” or “climate justice”, because nothing really is disconnected from the climate. :)
    That’s probably why “climate change” is a term with which it’s much easier to recruit greentroopers than “global warming”.
    In fact, “climate change” really doesn’t have very much to do with CO2 and it’s radiative properties anymore.
    That’s where we sceptics often go wrong when we debate, I believe, the terminology is almost interchangeable with “solidarity” or simply “justice” these days.
    When we believe that we’re discussing science, the other side is really discussing a political/philosophical idea.
    That’s why the science really doesn’t matter for most of these people. They just need something to fight against. Preferrably something diffuse enough so that they can keep marching the streets with the same old, naïve, banners as always…

  57. I’ve submitted a copy of the SPPI analysis, in the requested format, to the email address posted. I’m sure you all are doing something similar?

  58. I’ve had a good look at all the members of the Committee, and although there are two or three who I would suspect of having swallowed the CRU/IPC line, there are enough on there who are likely to press hard for the truth for me to feel reassured. The Independent was formerly a member of UKIP by the way (and a Conservative before that)

    I’m glad to hear from IsoTherm above that this enquiry was called at the Committee’s own instigation. Let’s hope all those who have material information have the time to submit it.

  59. Anthony,
    It would be great if WUWT could host a thread or archive of various submissions so that citizens around the globe have a record of what was submitted. Too often the public hear “we gave consideration to all submissions” without knowing what those documents or comments were. If it were known that there was to be a publicly accessible record of skeptical submissions, those involved in the inquiry may be encouraged to take greater care with their deliberations.

  60. Thanks Sam,

    Firstly PLEASE NOTE THE SHORT TIMESCALE: Wednesday 10 February: that’s only three weeks away.

    Second, can I remind everyone commenting that if you can write a comment here, then you can contribute to the work of the committee. Their request for Written Evidence is:-

    Written evidence should consist of the following documents:

    * A covering letter containing:
    o name and contact details
    o any request to give oral evidence
    o any request for information to remain confidential
    * A memorandum containing:
    o a summary of the main points you are making
    o a brief introduction about you
    o factual information you would like the committee to be aware of
    o any recommendations that you would like the committee to consider including in its report

    Please note: written evidence is often published and made available in a report and on the internet.

    Evidence can be emailed to the committee at: scitechcomparliament.uk

    FINALLY, REMEMBER MPs ARE VERY BUSY PEOPLE AND A LOT OF POORLY THOUGHT OUT SUBMISSIONS OR VERY FEW WILL LOOK THE CRITICS OF THE CRU LOOK LIKE A DISORGANISED RABBLE AND MAKE THE CRU LOOK GOOD IN COMPARISON!

    If anyone want to contact me email mike ClimateMice.com

  61. Those didn’t show

    the committee email is: scitechcom (AT) parliament.uk

    My email is: MIKE (AT) ClimateMice.com

  62. Read the announcement carefully.
    As I read it the new inquiry is concerned with the first three (un-numbered) questions for which it invites written submissions to be followed by oral evidence hearings in March.
    The Independent Review examining the four (numbered) topics is the ongoing UEA so-called ‘Independent Review’. The Science and Technology Committee inquiry is not asking specifically for submissions on those four topics, even though the eye naturally gravitates to those. It is poorly laid out, but the paragraphing is the proof.

  63. This is an encouraging move. The committee may very well be independently minded, and they will certainly grill some of the main parties, they may even call Hansen, Mann and others from the US, they won’t be compelled to come, but they would look very guilty if they refused, and more over, they may feel cocky enough to try to BS the committee. If they do try they will certainly get a shock. Hansen would have to come, bearing in mind he interfered over here recently in a court case, which resulted in shutting out a power station, with a consequent risk to our energy supplies.

    What is very important though is, that this is not an opinion poll, so all of us posters should stay out of it, and leave it to Profs Lindzen, Plimer, Bellamy, and also Anthony, Lord Moncton and especially the two M’s. The committe will not react well to Spam.

    We live in interesting times.

  64. From The Times January 23, 2010

    UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

    Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

    “I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”

  65. Well now, I was going to have a good rant on an earlier thread to the effect that none of our 600+ MP’s thought that climategate was worth mentioning in the House let alone stand up and demand a public enquiry.

    Let’s have it done properly – Starting with a Senior Judge to head up the enquiry.

  66. Is it me or has “American Thinker on CRU, GISS, and Climategate” vanished?

    REPLY: was briefly posted, 2 minutes maybe, then rescheduled due to other more important news. Will show up later -A

  67. Ref – Patrik (15:05:59) :
    “Veronica>> I’m not left wing, but I believe I can explain how it got this way anyhow. :)…
    “When we believe that we’re discussing science, the other side is really discussing a political/philosophical idea.
    That’s why the science really doesn’t matter for most of these people. They just need something to fight against. Preferrably something diffuse enough so that they can keep marching the streets with the same old, naïve, banners as always..”
    ______________________

    So True! But it actually goes back to the 19th Century; Das Kapital et al (if not centuries/millenium before). The Late Great Soviet Union may be history but the dream lives on around the world. Dare I say many Ivy League institutions and a current US political party looks very green these days. The “Green Dream” of Utopia lives on. I guess it always will. Climategate was never about Science, it was about “science” being used as a political weapon.

  68. I really must have become a sad old Brit git. I should be extremely encouraged by this announcement but why, why, why, can I not get it out of my head that this is a Lib/Lab/Con trick timed to ensure that nothing meaningful comes out of either inquiry until after the UK General Election?

    All three major UK party leaders are wedded if not imbedded into AGW. I cannot see that any, especially the present PM, who, according to opinion polls, has branded the majority of the electorate as “flat-earthers” would relish answering why they had not carried out due diligence before taking up their very, very, firm and in some cases OTT positions?

    Time will tell, and I am more than willing to accept that these are proved to be just the unfounded fears of a cynical old Brit.

    Thanks to AW, M&M et al, please do not underestimate the influence that you have all had in bringing things to this stage or the ability that you have going forward. The UK needed the help of the peoples of the North American continent twice during the last century. We have need again; we are in the grips of the EU and appear to have lost the will to fight ourselves. But at least this time I am assured that the climate is warmer over here!

    “If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito” The Dalai Lama

    Regards

  69. Cold Englishman, well said.

    As the instigator of the petition: “…to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.” (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/) The committee could be seen to be responding to “my” petition – so there is another M to add to that list of people who need to put in a submission.

  70. B. Smith (13:31:10) :

    I fear you may be right.

    In a public meeting organised by Fred Singer at an IPCC Meeting in 2001 I said the following.

    “When the ‘chickens come home to roost’ – as they surely will with efluxion of time – the politicians and the media won’t say,
    “It was our fault”.

    They will say,
    “It was the scientists’ fault”,
    and that’s me. And I object!”

    In the years since then I have seen no reason to for me to alter that prediction.

    Richard

  71. Friends:

    For the public record, I copy below the cover note of my submission to the Select Committee that I emailed a few minutes ago.

    Richard

    ***************

    Dear Members of the Science and Technology Committee:

    Pease find the attached copy with Appendices of my Submission to your “Investigation of 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)”.

    I will post a hard copy to you as your press release announces is required.

    My Declaration of Interests is implicit in my submission: i.e.
    (a) I resent having had a scientific paper blocked from publication by nefarious method
    and
    (b) one of the emails hacked (?) from the CRU was from me and it demonstrates that I complained about the ‘blocking’.

    However, my “Interests” are trivial in comparison to the importance of the substantive point of my submission: viz.

    The email demonstrates that 6 years ago the self-titled ‘Team’ knew the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless and they acted to prevent publication of proof of this.

    Regards

    Richard S Courtney

    88 Longfield
    Falmouth
    Cornwall
    TR11 4SL
    United Kingdom

  72. Somewhat appropriately, James Hacker M.P. had the nature and purpose of inquiries different types of inquiries explained to him by Humphrey Appleby in the popular TV series “Yes, Minister”. It may have looked like fiction for the sake of comedy; but it reflects fairly accurately the machinations of government and “public/civil service”.

    The terms of reference for this inquiry are already very telling.

  73. Tom in Texas>> “Is there any manipulation or suppression of data that is not at odds with acceptable scientific practice?”

    I suspect if you posed that question to the CRU crew (or Pachauri) the response would be the standard: “Well, yes. But it doesn’t undermine the conclusions, and the science is sound”.

  74. What a move, could be checkmate.

    Election in May, biggest problem for the Conservatives is Camerons big green issue. Lots of tories not happy about their leaders stance on green issues above company profit. How to swing an election, kill the green issue make it a huge public debacle, it was the scientists gov’ner, split the tory party take the election gain the mandate of the vote for another four years of being Prime Minister.

    Evidence in by 10th Feb please we have a lot of work to do before May, Gorden shifts off into the shadows stoking his white cat ‘ The country is mine, mine I say aarrghh ha ha ha’.

  75. This looks real nice!

    I think it benifits all different interest on the issue.I cant see that the parliament guys dear to execute a whitewash, the whole world will be watching them.

    I’m really looking forward to get some straight answers from the “scientist” concerned. They put this investigation on them selves and its a democratic sanetarian question really. Swedish public service (SVT) is more climate talibanish than the BBC believe it or not.They took two weeks to report on climate gate!! Beat that if you can! All their credibility is on the line here. Maybe all european public services?

  76. Ashby (13:09:05) :

    My biggest worry in all of this is that the original raw unadjusted climate data has been compromised. In another thread (here or Climate Audit) I read rumors that the original log books have been mouldering or improperly archived while this cabal is busily adjusting the “unadjusted” stored data, baking cooling into the earlier warm data series without properly noting when the data has been adjusted, etc..

    One would think, given the history of scandals based on information of this kind, it is precisely such cover-up activities that sink the culprits worse than the original breach. Have faith that data doctoring at this stage is anticipated and will be found out. Even the most expert doctoring or shredding will jeopardize the entire enterprise and its personnel. It is the crime of cover-up that usually hangs the guilty in the end.

  77. if you want to make a submission check the guidelines below

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/witnessguide.pdf

    the UK parliament website has a lot of material online already including archives of previous debates in the lords, and the chamber, questiontime etc.
    Select Committee meetings are usually televised, including evidence sessions

    I hope Richard Courtnay has ticked the box wishing to give oral submissions.
    if you are well prepared an oral submission backed by solid paperwork will carry more weight, and get better MSM coverage, and have far more influence on the committee.
    But if you go in ill prepared, these committees can give you a hard time and make you look a damn fool so be well prepared.

    http://www.parliament.uk/topics/Climate-change.htm

  78. The aim of the British government is always to look innocent and better still, not even involved. They are very, very good at it. Expect nothing.

    The picture of modern Britain as an small, insignificant economy at the edge of Europe forgets that London is the world’s biggest financial centre and that Gordon Brown seems to have been running every recent international situation, including the global financial crisis, the G20 and Copenhagen.

  79. The wrong three questions.

    Q1: What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
    A1: It isn’t the disclosure that will harm the scientific (climate) community but what was exposed. So the wrong question will effectively avoid them getting embarrassing answers i.e. whitewash.

    Q2: Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
    A2: This doesn’t need a committee, anyone can answer without a moments thought: NO. The right question is: “should a criminal investigation be conducted into possible fraud by members of UAE?” answer: Yes.

    Q3: How independent are the other two international data sets?
    A3: OK, so there they will need to quantify the answer but we have a good idea of the answer already: NOT. Again, the real question should be “where is the original raw data?” If you don’t have it, why not? How valid is the “value added data?” “how valid is the AGW theory if based on this data?” “where is the taxpayers money?”
    I think we can all answer these questions.

  80. Lindsay H. (17:49:51) :

    No, I did not tick the box to say I wanted to make an oral submission. If they want to cross-examine me then they can (and would) call me to attend. And I would prepare in the same way that I did the last time I was before a Parliamentary Select Committee.

    Richard

  81. All I would say is good luck Richard, I, as not being expert enough, will, as I hope other supporters looking on, will keep off the playing field.

    I do wonder if Lord Monckton will hold off on his trip to the Antipodes (Jan27th -8th Feb) and get into this. As someone with huge experience of the committees and his eloquent, knowledgeable, destruction of of “the science”, he really is needed to participate.

    Still time to postpone my Lord?

  82. @ Andrew W…

    I think the three questions they are referring to are;

    —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?

  83. Sam (14:15:28) :

    Matt is correct: tempting though it is to bombard the Committee with submissions, esp if any of us is a constituent of any of these MPs, we must leave that to those sceptics who have been involved in the research (or scientists qualified to comment on it) and who can give chapter and verse on specific manipulations and abuses (if any).

    Sam and Matt are right, but we need to make sure those who are qualified and should comment, do make submissions. I’m sure Anthony will take an active role in this.

  84. JMANON
    I think you are being too cynical.
    1) If we read “the disclosures” as covering the material disclosed, rather than the fact of the disclosure, then the first question gives the committee scope to analyse all the misbehaviour exposed by the emails and to consider to what extent this misbehaviour has invalidated the scientific claims made by the CRU and their associates.
    2) The second question is appropriately phrased, as otherwise it would presume the answer, and if we are to persuade the public and the MSM of the magnitude of the problem, the case needs to be built from scratch. It leads onto potential criminal issues of fraudulent misrepresentation in funding proposals.
    3) I agree that the vital question is “where is the original raw data?” with follow up questions if, as we all suspect, it has been fatally compromised: “who was responsible for any corruption/destruction?” and most crucially “can any of the models have any validity at all when they are no longer testable against unimpaired data?”. But in the course of answering their question they should get a good look at some of the IPCC’s claims about independence of the data and of various GCM simulations.
    From a policy point of view, it is the IPCC that has driven the AGW agenda, so the most important thing is that submissions enable the committee to form a realistic view as to the reliability of the materials in IPCC4.
    We think we know the answers to all these questions, but it needs people like Steve McIntyre, AW, the Bishop, and Richard Courtney above to put the facts before the committee in such a way that they have no choice but to follow the logic.

  85. d thompson (14:42:32) :

    I want it televised. I want to see jones briffa and the rest sweat under the evidence and probing qs of the committee. However the three main parties are all pro agw and the right qs will not be asked. The bankers took a beating from the sc, blair/brown will take a beating, the election will distract the voters as I said all parties are pro agw. Nobody( well very few) will take any notice.

    Committee meetings are regularly televised, there is a dedicated TV channel for the UK Parliament, however the Election is too close for comfort.

  86. Cold Englishman is right – the Select Committee is the opportunity for scientists directly involved or with knowledge of what was going on at CRU i.e. the alleged use of ‘tricks’, dodgy data, fudge factors, failure to adhere to the scientific method, and usurping the peer review process. If others wish to make points (which is the right of UK citizens at least) I suggest they state that they have no direct involvement with the establishment, but are concerned taxpayers. That way if thousands of sceptics do submit evidence the input from the key players will less likely to be missed.

    Just my tuppence worth – from a not so warm Scotsman (the snow from December is now almost all gone, but it is still only just above freezing).

  87. There is a comment from Phil Willis reported in the Telegraph this morning:
    “There are a significant number of climate change deniers who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science that has been changed or at worst manipulated. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so the public can see what they are saying” (sic)
    What chance of a fair hearing under Mr Willis’s chairmanship?

  88. I know there are a lot of people who would like to see Lord Monckton involved. However, Monckton, as far as I’m aware, has not had any direct involvement with CRU in the past, and therefore cannot be a witness. His opinion is just hearsay. It would be like members of the public wanting to get involved with the Chilcot enquiry without having played any role in the activities in question.

    Of course, I may be wrong about this. What does Richard Courtney think? Is this something passive observers can play a part in?

  89. Can I urge anybody who has some scientific knowledge relating to climate to make a submission. You do not have to be a UK citizen.
    One of the reasons that the warmists have got away with what has turned out to be a massive fraud is because too many good men kept quiet, for what ever reason. Now, is a unique chance to kill the political agenda of AGW for ever.

  90. While this is great news for those of us of a sceptical mindset, having watched the progress of a number of enquiries in the UK during the 7+ years I have been living here, I am not confident that the truth will emerge in a recognisable form and neither am I confident that those who have appeared to act ‘unscientifically’, unethically and in defiance of the FOI laws will suffer much in the way of negative sanctions. I am not confident that justice will be well served in this matter. I could be quite wrong, and I hope I am, but the track record of such enquiries appears to be quite dismal. My hopes are twofold; 1, that the evidence is so cumulatively clear and damming that course of action for the enquiry will be to expose the entire affair for what it is and 2, that some way can be found for politicians to save face, allowing them to retreat from their extreme Warmist positions. The Prime Minister has discredited his own scientific objectivity by claiming anyone who doubted “the fixed and settled science behind CAGW is a flat-earther” and that “there were X days to save the world!” at the start of the recent Copenhagen conference, but his credibility, and that of most politicians in this matter, must be at a very lowe ebb. The bullet wounds in the PM’s feet are so obvious that in simpler times he would have been laughed out of office.
    Hopefully, the pols as a class will realise that most of the intelligent world knows that ‘green taxes to save the planet’ are just another tax with no particular relevance to the environment but are a part of the shell-game that some world figures hope to enrich themselves by, and that they will quietly walk away from them, muttering face-saving phrases such as “The Warmists certainly fooled us!”.
    As a footnote, I suspect an enquiry into the public utterances of some of the more aggressive ‘Green’ organisations including WWF and Greenpeace would be an illuminating sequel to the upcoming event.
    To paraphrase the old Chinese proverb, we live in interesting times.

  91. “Is this something passive observers can play a part in?”

    Yes see: http://www.climatemice.com/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Inquiry.ClimategateInquiry

    From a public relations point of view, this is a response to the public petition: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/ as such the public are clearly interested parties as defined in the remit of the parties.

    So, it is only fitting that the public concern expressed by the number signing the petition is similarly expressed in a public submission to the committee. And as the creator of the petition …

  92. There is little or no chance that this committee will review the climategate evidence objectively. In parliament there only a handful of MP’s who are likely to be objective: most are pro climate change as evidenced by the ease with which the climate change bill passed through parliament with little or no opposition. The committee members will be drawn from MP’s who thus will have a vested interest in not being embarrassed and proving that they were right all along. Already the Chairman of the committee is referring to climate change deniers

  93. @ David

    QUOTE
    I think you are being too cynical.
    1) If we read “the disclosures” as covering the material disclosed, rather than the fact of the disclosure, then the first question gives the committee scope to analyse all the misbehaviour exposed by the emails and to consider to what extent this misbehaviour has invalidated the scientific claims made by the CRU and their associates.
    END QUOTE

    We shouldn’t have to, or be able to, read or interpret the question in any other than a clearly unambiguous manner.
    You are right about the objectiveness of the next question but our whole problem is with badly worded terms of reference.
    “To investigate climate variation over geological time frames” would have been a much better term of reference than “To investigate anthropogenic global warming.”

    The far more likely outcome is that this wording implies a degree of open investigation as you suggest but doesn’t explicitly state that and in fact the wording is such that they can exclude any such investigation as beyond their remit and competence.
    The wording doesn’t put it beyond doubt either way but it could have done and since it doesn’t you have to ask why.
    They could have said “We are only interested in the security aspects and how we protect data and correspondence at other institutions” or they could have said “We are interested in the implications of the material found in the disclosures” but they didn’t.
    I can’t help thinking that there is a world of difference between “implications of the disclosures” and “implications of the material revealed by the disclosures” and it is way to much of a stretch to reach the second from the first. So I can’t accept that we can read “disclosures” (the act of), as “Disclosures” meaning the actual material revealed.

  94. This morning I received a reply from my MP to a message I sent several days ago. I basically threatened to vote UKIP if the Conservatives, after climategate etc., persisted in promoting Cameron’s blinkered green policies.

    His reply was quite encouraging. I will not quote the whole thing, but one paragraph is as follows:

    “I can understand how disappointed you feel about the scandal. This has been damaging to not only the global warming movement but also to the general credibility of scientific evidence. I have also looked at the arguments presented by those who are more sceptical about anthropogenic global warming. You may be interested to know that I have read through geologist Ian Plimer’s book ‘Heaven and Earth’ on he subject of global warming, the evidence that he has presented and on the subject.”

    This is from a man who has previously parroted Cameron’s party line on this subject. He does go on to say that he believes in reducing emissions and has put forward energy policies which will reduce energy use and save cosumers money. Well, I suppose he can’t be expected to cave in all at once! He is in the shadow cabinet, so reasonably influential. I think many Conservative MPs may have had similar ‘threats’ and may try to change policy before the election.

    Well, Rome wasn’t built in a day, but, I repeat, I find this encouraging.

  95. I wrote to my (Lib Dem) MP about the apparent breaches of the FoI Act to see if the MP had asked any questions in Parliament about this. Considering that the Lib Dems are (after the Green Party) the most nutty about global warming I was surprised to receive the following reply:

    “I share your concerns about this. The whole event causes serious concerns, as we have come to depend on science to guide us when making decisions on such matters in society, and often for solutions. It is worrying to think that respected scientists would consider tampering with results because they did not get the result they had hoped for. As you have also noted, there are also concerns about their respect for the Freedom of Information Act. It is a clear breach if people are deliberately deleting information they know has been requested.

    I have written to the Minister in charge, Michael Wills MP, to ask what his views of this incident are, and if the Government will do if this is found to be widespread in the scientific community. I will let you know as soon as I receive a response.”

    I am still waiting to find out the Minister’s reply.

  96. A Lovell,

    “This morning I received a reply from my MP to a message I sent several days ago. I basically threatened to vote UKIP if the Conservatives, after climategate etc., persisted in promoting Cameron’s blinkered green policies.

    His reply was quite encouraging.”

    A Conservative election leaflet recently arrived on my doorstep from the candidate challenging for this seat. It listed 10 Conservative commitments, and I was delighted to see that climate change or CO2 did not feature in it at all.

  97. Vincent, is it too much to hope that the tide is, at last, turning?

    Several commenters previously have mentioned the perfect ‘out’ these people (politicians, msm) have. Blame the scientists and move on!

    It seems to be a drip, drip process rather than a crashing dam break, but I’m a very patient person.

  98. Sorry,I meant to include Alba in my reply too. The Libdems no less!! Maybe it is the dam after all………….

  99. Vincent (03:06:46) :

    You ask me:

    “What does Richard Courtney think? Is this something passive observers can play a part in?”

    I do not know because I suspect the answer to your question depends on what you mean by “play a part in”.

    Clearly, the Committee cannot afford the time to hear and/or consider input from each and every person and organisation that may want to state an opinion. So, of necessity, the Committee must concentrate its efforts on considering actual evidence from persons who were involved and/or affected by issues raised in the leaked files. The Committee can then evaluate that evidence to determine if it shows nothing of concern, or shows some degree of incompetence, and/or shows some degree of malpractice.

    However, that judgement is to be made by politicians, not lawyers. Hence, the Committee will consider public opinion to be an important factor in its judgement. For example, the Committee exists to provide accountability that good scientific advice is being used by government and, therefore, if the public do not trust that advice then it cannot be good.

    A recent example of this need for ‘good’ science to be acceptable to the public was when a Chairman of a Scientific Advisory Committee was sacked because he persisted in saying the use of canabis is less harmful than the public thinks it is. But government has to value the public perception as being more important than a scientific opinion, so he was sacked. The House of Commons debated his dismissal and approved it. As one MP said in that debate, to applause from other MPs,
    “Scientists should be ‘on tap’ and not on top”.

    So, many organisations and people will want to have an input to the Committee. Indeed, does anybody expect WWF and Greenpeace to not make submissions? And the Committee will want to be seen to be taking note of such inputs.

    Hence, the real question to address is,
    ‘How can passive observers play an effective part in helping the Committee to reach correct judgements?’

    It requires a professional lobbiest and PR consultant to address that question. And I cannot provide a useful answer to it because I am completely incompetent in lobbying and PR.

    One suggestion for what to do is provided by IsoTherm at (03:48:15) who suggests signing his petition and providing that to the Committee. Perhaps he is right, but – as I said – I am not competent to assess the worth of his suggestion.

    Sorry to be so unhelpful, but we each have abilities and inabilities that we need to recognise for ourselves.

    Richard

  100. Herman L says:
    Sean O’Hare (11:08:14) :
    One whitewash coming up.
    Declared guilty before the trial even starts. And you guys accuse us of bias!

    It seems to me, Herman, that you are not a UK resident. If you were, you would appreciate we have had 4 inquiries into the Iraq war, each of which has resulted in a whitewash.

    You will appreciate, therefore, that Sean is speaking from experience,……and he is perfectly correct!

    The people of this Sceptred Isle are heartily sick of politicians and Chancers treating them as mugs. So, if the Climategate investigation proves to be conclusive in fingering those responsible for the CRU scam, so much the better.

  101. I agree with Mark, Allen Ford, Cold Englishman, Lindsay H and all the others who have advised against making submissions which are poorly argued, ungrammatical and misspelt or exhibit any other features contained in a rant.

    Incidentally, I have just signed up to the 10 Downing Street petition and noted that there have only been just over 2,600 signatures so far and, in the light of my comment above, was disturbed to find that the text of the petition refers to CRU as the “Climate” Research Unit (instead of “Climatic” which I believe is the correct name).

  102. Richard Courtney,

    Thanks for your considered opinion. Your point about this having a political dimension rather than a legal one, has helped me decide. I will send a letter as a concerned ciitizen.

  103. “One suggestion for what to do is provided by IsoTherm at (03:48:15) who suggests signing his petition and providing that to the Committee. Perhaps he is right, but – as I said – I am not competent to assess the worth of his suggestion.”

    Richard, my suggestion is much more than just signing the petition. It is to create an online cooperative submission to the committee representing those “interested parties” who signed the petition and in effect brought about this inquiry.

    So it really does need a group of people to help out on the wiki: http://www.climatemice.comwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Inquiry.ClimategateInquiry

    As for those saying it will be a whitewash – of course it will be a whitewash – would you prefer a greenwash?

    But seriously, the more effort put into this inquiry, the more publicity that can be generated by writing to local papers, MPs, councillors, etc. the more likely it is that the greenwash will be removed.

  104. I hate to pour cold water on this, but the chairman of the committee, one Phil Willis, has issued the following statement:
    “There are a significant number of climate change deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science that has been changed or at worst manipulated.

    We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so the public can see what they are saying”

    This is hardly a word form that engenders confidence that a balanced investigation will be fothcoming.

  105. Mark_K (11:19:01) :

    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.

    Two days after Climategate broke I predicted that there’d be more disclosures as a result of investigations in the aftermath.

    hotrod ( Larry L ) (11:49:35) :

    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.

    It’s just possible that some politicians there are looking fro a way to back off of the AGW limb they’ve crawled out onto. This inquiry, if it turns up more “good stuff,” would give them a golden opportunity to do so.

  106. Tom in Texas (12:54:34) :

    “…to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…”

    Is there any manipulation or suppression of data that is not at odds with acceptable scientific practice?

    They just left out a comma (before “which”); or maybe they were allowing the defendants a little slack so as not to count a rounding error as an unacceptable manipulation.

  107. Chris Wood (03:07:10) :

    One of the reasons that the warmists have got away with what has turned out to be a massive fraud is because too many good men kept quiet, for what ever reason. Now, is a unique chance to kill the political agenda of AGW for ever.

    Alas, “It takes a lot of arrows to kill an elephant.” (But eventually they’ll do the job.)

  108. Vincent (03:06:46) :
    Posted:-
    ” I know there are a lot of people who would like to see Lord Monckton
    involved. However, Monckton, …………cannot be a witness. His opinion
    is just hearsay. ………….. without having played any role in the activities
    in question.

    Of course, I may be wrong about this. …………..?

    Vincent,

    One finds it hard to imagine this would have happened if not for Lord Monckton.

    While he is now occupied, helping Australia to grasp the reality of AGW and it’s hardly fair expecting him to contribute to this by 10 Feb, his capacity for producing well researched analysis at short notice seems quite prolific .

    In any case, any committee seeking to seriously address what has been going on, would be failing in its pulic duty if it didn’t call on Lord Monckton – and that’s not something he would tolerate.

    So rest assured if it wasn’t a genuine enquiry, it could look forward to the same scrutiny as CRU and the IPCC have been enjoying recently.

  109. Nick Luke (10:20:15) : I also hold the same fears.

    Now what really could be described as “healthy” would be to have the Chair of any inquiry keep an open mind throughout the whole of the proceedings.

    But surely this the role of the Chair of any Parliamentary Select Committee?

    If not, how can the outcome of the proceedings be defined as the results of an inquiry? Are they not just going to be the result of an opportunity to reaffirm already held beliefs?

    I do sincerly hope that the Chair of the forthcomming Inquiry refutes the words attributed to him in this mornings press. You never know, maybe they were reported “out of context”?

    If not I fear that we are about to witness an elaborate attempt at another Climate Change Educational, only this time it will be a Parliamentary Select Committee Production, to ensure that “the public can see what they are saying”. The inference being that it is not “healthy” for the public to think and form views of their own? That seems to ring a bell somewhere….

    Well, there I go again being an old cynic again! I really am a disgrace, I must go away and look up the new modern political correct meaning of impartiality and integrity, they appear to have passed me by.

  110. IsoTherm (09:49:57) :

    I apologise if I misrepresented your suggestion(s). Any such error was not my intention, and I hope your clarification has removed any confusion that I may have caused to others.

    I write this both to apologise and to draw attention to your clarification.

    Richard

  111. Can’t see Lord Monckton getting involved with the inquiry. He is on record before, and during, the Copenhagen conference of saying that he would not lobby the UK representatives as they were constrained by the EU. He was concentrating his efforts with governments that were autonomous and could make decisions. Hence his Canada, USA and now Australian tours.

    I trust the good Lord “breaks a leg” Down Under!

    Regards

  112. Richard S Courtney (15:25:31): There is a very old joke: “What did the actress say to the global warming … as he tried to hide the decline? … “it happens to everyone!”

  113. IsoTherm (16:14:27) :

    That was not gracious. I did not try to “hide” anything. In fact, I went out of my way to draw attention to your clarification.

    Richard

  114. Richard – what I was trying to say (and clearly failed) is that we all make mistakes – as e.g. I now realise to my own embarrassment regarding the “climate/climatic research unit” – so no apology is needed.

    The joke was intended for your amusement – It’s probably a Freudian pun – on the word “climatic” – add that to the climax in 1998, the attempt to “hide the decline” …. it all reminded me of the joke re the actress and the global warmer.

    Of course, “we all make mistakes” could be applied to the CRU. The difference, is that they were pretending to be super studs, with a “phallus” of the temperature graph which they claimed was getting bigger and bigger – and now when the truth is exposed, it not only isn’t getting bigger, in fact it is clearly drooping and there’s even a Viagra package lying around in the way of adjusted data!

  115. There are many comments here concerning ‘whitewash’.

    Whilst one cannot exclude that possibility, it is clear that contributors and eminent experts who write at this site are ‘interested parties’ and are therefore well able to craft suitable arguments to the three questions listed.

    The key one, I would think, to stop ‘whitewash’, is question 2 – is the scope of the official enquiry wide enough?

    In particular, I would wonder whether it was appropriate to ask the following question:

    ‘Are the CURRENT INTERNATIONAL political structures, processes and mechanisms for co-ordinating climate change research consistent with conclusions being drawn with scientific rigour within acceptable political timescales?’

    IMHO.

  116. Well its ready, and barring any serious wobbles, my submission is ready to go. So much for the “paperless” office, I’ve got dozens of previous drafts strewn about the table.

    How can anyone hope to make a submission in a mere 3000 words?

    I just hope others have made submissions covering all the various findings like Darwin etc.!

Comments are closed.