From the Science and Technology committee of the UK Paliament press release here.
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Terms of Reference
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:
—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
—How independent are the other two international data sets?
The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.
Background
On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
Submissions
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:
Each submission should:
a)be no more than 3,000 words in length
b)be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c)have numbered paragraphs
d)include a declaration of interests.
A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Climatic Research Unit”. An additional paper copy should be sent to:
The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
Please also note that:
—Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
—Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
—Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
—Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.
Oral evidence
An evidence session will be announced in due course.
Press notices
22/01/10 Inquiry announced
h/t to Bishop Hill
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
IsoTherm etc.
Encourage those interested in filing to read the discussion on UK Parliamentary Inquiry into CRU at ClimateAudit and possibly coordinate submissions through that discussion forum for maximum impact.
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.
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”.
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’.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Herman L (11:44:41) :
Who is “us” Herm?
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?
@ur momisugly 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?
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.
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.