Press Release
LONDON, 28 January 2010 – Lord Lawson, the Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, has this week written to Sir Muir Russell about the terms of reference and the conduct of his Independent Inquiry into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Lord Lawson said the terms of reference needed to be broadened to cover not just what occurred within the CRU but also the impact externally, including whether the CRU sought to deny opportunities to other scientists to publish dissenting views. The Inquiry should take evidence not just from the CRU but also from those who feel they or their work have been improperly treated or have had information unreasonably denied to them.
Lord Lawson also argued that if public confidence is to be restored the
proceedings should be conducted in public wherever possible. Also any
relevant material which is discovered beyond the e-mails so far disclosed
should be published. The CRU has been an important contributor to the IPCC
process (which has recently been found wanting in other respects) which in
turn has provided the scientific basis for the international policy
debate. If the British people are to make significant sacrifices and
accept major changes in their life style they need to have confidence in
the integrity of both the underlying science and the way in which it is
processed.
——————
The following is the full text of the letter:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
1 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5DB
Tel: 020 7930 6856
January 27, 2010
Sir Muir Russell
cc Professor Edward Acton
On behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, I greatly welcome the
establishment of your inquiry. The integrity of the scientific basis of
the global warming debate must be unimpeachable. It should also be
recognised that the Climatic Research Unit is not just one among many
research centres but is a key contributor to the work of the IPCC.
I broadly welcome the terms of reference that have been drawn up, though
with some concern that they may be a bit too CRU-centric. I am glad to
note that you have discretion to extend them if you wish so that you can
follow the trail wherever it leads. It is also right that you are
examining not just the published e-mails but also any other relevant
e-mails. In this way you will be able to assess the claim that those so
far published have been taken out of context but also see if there is
other material which sheds light on the accusations.
It is essential, too, that your investigation is not confined to what
occurred within CRU. As well as taking evidence from those in CRU who wish
to clear their names, you should go outside CRU and take evidence from
those who feel they or their work have been improperly treated. Some of
the published e-mails, for example, suggest a determined effort by CRU
scientists to prevent the publication in peer-reviewed journals of
dissenting papers by other scientists. The damage to the public interest
can be just as much from what was suppressed as from what was incorrectly
published.
On process, I recognise that you do not want to turn this inquiry over to
the lawyers, with witnesses closely advised or even represented by
lawyers. Nevertheless I think you would be wise to take on some legal
expertise. First, it is important that the outcome is conclusive and is
not subject afterwards to legal challenges as happened, for example, in
the OFSTED investigation of the Baby P case. Secondly, it would assist you
as chair if someone else experienced in cross examination led the
questioning, leaving you free to concentrate on listening to the answers.
I also believe it is essential that you co-opt some statistical expertise.
Much of the controversy arose from the statistical techniques used to meld
together date from different sources. Were those techniques applied
consistently and were they transparent to other scientists? Much of the
forensic challenge to the so-called Hockey Stick controversy has come from
statisticians.
Finally, there is the question of openness and transparency. It has
increasingly come to be recognised that, if the findings of an inquiry are
to command public confidence, it is necessary for the inquiry to be held
for the most part in public (national security being the most obvious
cause for exception), with transcripts of each day’s evidence made
promptly available. The current Chilcot Iraq inquiry is only the latest in
a series of inquiries where this has been the case. It is also the only
way of demonstrating fairness towards those under investigation.
We shall be releasing the text of this letter within the next few days.
Yours sincerely,
The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby
Chairman
— end
h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?
Experiment; We are going to prove global warming causes freezing conditions and global warming causes hotter conditions.
You have three cups in front of you. One cup on the left side is filled with scolding hot water, another cup on the right side is filled with near freezing cold water, The cup in the middle is empty. You pour half of the cup of hot water into the middle empty cup. You pour half of the cup of cold water into the middle cup. Now stick a finger in the water in the middle cup. Go ahead, don’t be afraid.
It’s warm, isn’t it?
Now here’s the tricky part. We are going to prove global warming causes freezing conditions and global warming causes hotter conditions. Take the warm water in the middle cup, you know the one with half scolding hot and half freezing cold water in it, and pour half of it into the cold cup and half into the hot cup. This is going to cause the water in the hot cup to get hotter and the water in the cold cup to get hotter, This is what warming does. Yes, even hotter than the water in the middle cup you just tested with your finger, cause warming is evil. Trust me.
Now, stick the index finger of your right hand in the cup of water on the far right side, Next, stick the index finger of your left hand in the cup of water on the far left side. Be careful, the scolding hot water is going to get even hotter because thats thats what warm does when it touches something because it is evil. Wait a minute,
Nevermind.
Yes, an open enquiry.
However, where Phil Jones and the CRU could be held accountable is if they are summoned before the separate parliamentary inquiry. Not easy to lie there.
This is a very sensible move by Lord Lawson especially the idea of using, presumably a QC, for questioning and expert statistician for advice.
He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt. Nowadays he is better known as Nigella’s Dad. (Nigella Lawson, TV cook, very enticing to men of a certain age.)
I think this will be ignored. Worth a try though.
Sunshine! Woot! This can only be good for everyone….
With all the money behind AGW, I hope this does not turn out to be a prepaid and premeditated “whitewash”.
Rather, just find the truth — which may lead anywhere (lots of culprits) or nowhere at all (clearing all the suspicious folks of wrongdoing).
Dave D: As plain Nigel Lawson, Lord Lawson was Mrs Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has “pull”.
@ur momisugly Dave D
Take a look at his recent book, available at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Appeal-Reason-Cool-Global-Warming/dp/071563786X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264703258&sr=1-1
Things are really ‘warming’ up over here in the UK.
Best wishes to all who have precipitated the warmists current demise, especially Anthony and EU Referendum (Richard North). See:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
@ur momisugly David D
“Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?”
He was the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who resigned from Thatcher’s cabinet on a matter of principle. He destroyed Lord Sterns assessment of the effects of climate change by showing significant flaws in the methodology and basic errors in the economics.
Compared to current British Politicians he is not just a heavy weight he is a megaweight and probably will be consulted privately by the incoming conservative government.
I trust this helps.
“He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt” – well that’s one way of putting it I guess
He is/was one of the UK’s longest serving Chancellor of the Exchequer. His wikipedia entry makes an interesting read.
Anopheles
By ‘someone’ in Thatcher’s government I assume you mean Chancellor of the Exchequer, the second highest position in government.
But I agree that it will probably be ignored.
@Anopheles (like the name!) “He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt.”
He was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and got this country (UK) straightened out financially only to have our current lot squander it all and more. Forget Nigella, Nigel is a well-respected heavyweight and I doubt this will be ignored.
It will be telling as to the integrity of the investigation if these reasonable suggestions are not followed. The people of the world have a considerable stake in the truth of global warming and the impact of any legislation that government bodies take. The world will be watching closely.
Lord Lawson certainly is a ‘good guy’ and he is playing a very clever game with his Global Warming Policy Foundation. Instead of promoting outright skepticism on the subject, and so polarizing the argument, he is taking what I can only describe as a slightly ‘right of centre’ approach. ie lets not spend billions until the science is absolutely proven – which of course it never will be.
His approach, I think, will win over a lot of waverers and undecideds along with a lot of alarmists who have changed their view of and don’t want to loose to much face. Only my opinion of course!
These events move slowly. CRU is staring at a tipping point.
Anopheles, I disagree on it being ignored. I believe that ,as long as Pachauri continues to resist calls for him to resign, the climategate/ipcc stories are just going to build and build. The absolute worst thing would be for Pachauri to go now.
Dave D
Depends on what you call a “good guy”. Before going to the House of Lords he was a Tory MP, eventually rising to be Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister, second in importance only to the Prime Minister) under Thatcher. Like someone else said, he better known today as the father of Nigella (a TV cook) and Dominic (a journalist for the Times)
Personally Im a Labour voter, so I think of him as being a bit like that other former Thatcher man in the AGW debate – Lord Monckton – ie I dont agree with his politics on most matters, but you would be a fool to underestimate his intelligence.
If he speaks out on the economic and political aspects of the debate, the “Establishment” here in the UK will take note.
If it is not public then will we need to submit an FOI request, every day, for each day of the inquiry?
Lord Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer during Margaret Thatcher’s government; here in the UK, the role of Chancellor is only second in importance to the Prime Minister – as the controller of all economic policy in the UK. Lawson always came across as a highly intelligent man and a highly honourable man – even to those on the opposite side of the political fence. He has been exemplary in being the only member of the British parliamentary establishment to speak out about the Global Warming scam. He created the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a public vehicle to confront and debate the issue with the entrenched GW establishment – who control just about every other institution in Britain: BBC Radio, BBC Television and BBC Online – all strongly PRO AGW, the Royal Society, the MET Office, ALL the universities, the RSPB, WWF, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, ALL the Wildlife Trusts, the British Museum. It is a staggeringly UN Sceptical establishment and it has not been achieved without massive effort on the part of the AGW lobby to place their men in all the right jobs. To go up against all that is a very, very brave thing to do! Lawson will be blackballed from just about every gathering of the establishment – and I have never seen him on the BBC since he ran his colours up the mast. Another prominent sceptic – the famous botanist – David Bellamy – has been banned from appearance on the BBC for at least a decade – simly because he opposed the blanket coverage of windfarms and the CO2 AGW theory. The UK feels more and more like the old East Germany – certainly as far as the imposition of the ‘Party Line’ is concerned -which is promulgated by the BBC all day, every day. Lawson deserves a medal; maybe the Nobel Prize for 2011?
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Lord Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer during Margaret Thatcher’s government; here in the UK, the role of Chancellor is only second in importance to the Prime Minister – as the controller of all economic policy in the UK. Lawson always came across as a highly intelligent man and a highly honourable man – even to those on the opposite side of the political fence. He has been exemplary in being the only member of the British parliamentary establishment to speak out about the Global Warming scam. He created the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a public vehicle to confront and debate the issue with the entrenched GW establishment – who control just about every other institution in Britain: BBC Radio, BBC Television and BBC Online – all strongly PRO AGW, the Royal Society, the MET Office, ALL the universities, the RSPB, WWF, English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, ALL the Wildlife Trusts, the British Museum. It is a staggeringly UN-Sceptical establishment and it has not been achieved without massive effort on the part of the AGW lobby to place their men in all the right jobs. To go up against all that is a very, very brave thing to do! Lawson will be blackballed from just about every gathering of the establishment – and I have never seen him on the BBC since he ran his colours up the mast. Another prominent sceptic – the famous botanist – David Bellamy – has been banned from appearance on the BBC for at least a decade – simply because he opposed the blanket coverage of windfarms and the CO2 AGW theory. The UK feels more and more like the old East Germany – certainly as far as the imposition of the ‘Party Line’ is concerned -which is promulgated by the BBC all day, every day. Lawson deserves a medal; maybe the Nobel Prize for 2011?
This would seem to be the wrong enquiry for the scientists who feel they were prevented from publishing. The CRU do not publish any journals and would not be in a position to allow or prevent a publication. A complaint and enquiry would need to be made against a specific journal . As far as I know there is no such complaint.
There’s nothing good on tv anyway… bring it on!
Lawson is a Conservative, and thus not part of the governing party, but Sir Muir may well have it in mind that that situation may not prevail for very long.