From the Science and Technology committee of the UK Paliament press release here.
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Terms of Reference
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:
—What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
—Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
—How independent are the other two international data sets?
The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.
Background
On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
Submissions
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:
Each submission should:
a)be no more than 3,000 words in length
b)be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c)have numbered paragraphs
d)include a declaration of interests.
A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Climatic Research Unit”. An additional paper copy should be sent to:
The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
Please also note that:
—Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
—Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
—Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
—Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.
Oral evidence
An evidence session will be announced in due course.
Press notices
22/01/10 Inquiry announced
h/t to Bishop Hill
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Two days after Climategate broke I predicted that there’d be more disclosures as a result of investigations in the aftermath.
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.
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.
Alas, “It takes a lot of arrows to kill an elephant.” (But eventually they’ll do the job.)
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.
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.
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
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
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!”
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
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!
This is our real worry ,the climate scam is a blind to whats really going on ,be afraid very afraid ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiaFr_jEoCE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EeKj6Snm4c and you will never guess who is heading the fire dept in vic .
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.
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.!