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.
So what happened to the WaPo story that was up earlier? It was here one minute and then gone the next. I still had it up on my screen when I left to go get a cup of coffee… When I got back I tried to leave a comment and then….
**poof**
“404 not found” error. No more WaPo story.
REPLY: It was up about 5 minutes. I made a mistake, and that mistake was unfair to the authors I cited, in fairness to them, I removed it immediately. It is being rewritten. A corrected version will appear later. – Anthony
This has just hit MSM in the UK. Channel 4 News just told the whole story. (repeated 8pm Channel 4+1)
The stock markets should start to get very interesting.
Joe Romm posted the segment from the Quotations from Chairman Oblahma last night.
Regarding this inquiry, I just can’t waite for the question, “exactly what is the science behind global warming”????
“Hide the decline” Why do we need to hide it???
I also know there are those who disagree with the temperature reading. Enough disagreement to requir changes to the data.
crosspatch (11:36:14) :
I call it a paint job. They aren’t going to get Cap & Trade through the Senate, so they are pulling an end run.
Lofty speeches notwithstanding, the SEC and EPA are examples of using political agenda to bypass checks & balances.
Congress gives stimulus to jobs, beaurocracy leeches the life out of it.
Paul N (10:32:44) :
Dave D: As plain Nigel Lawson, Lord Lawson was Mrs Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has “pull”.
Actually that would be’ The Right Honourable Nigel Lawton’ not ‘Mr’, doubtless will have more ‘pull’ if the Conservatives win the forthcoming election.
CEI sued NASA GISS. Part of the lawsuit was raising the question, why is Gavin schmidt as a gubment employee blogging all day long on a special interest blog? Most employment agreements have “best efforts” clauses. Termination for shortcoming of best efforts are an out to fire people. For several weeks Gavin didn’t get the hint. If you are screwing around while on the clock, it can get you canned.
Vincent (11:05:01) :
You missed the point, Dr. Wakefield is accused with concensus science, the reason measels has since skyrocketed is that parents in the UK are not given the choice to have single vaccines as against MMR, single vaccines have NO link to autism.
Lawson has an uphill battle if he thinks he will be able to
shed light and pry the extra energy money that governments
are siphoning from rate payers. Did you see the “State of the
Union” speech last night? When the president mentioned
AGW, and settled science, the republicans could be heard
laughing; but that was not shocking, his giggly expression was.
He looked like a kid that has been caught with his hand in the
cookie jar (I was getting a cookie for you mommy!). Do these
guys think it’s funny that people will be paying much higher
rates for energy?
Good luck Lord Lawson!
So who will be CRU’s expert witness? Al Gore?
If he had said “Overwhelming evidence of scientific process manipulation by shady doings” I would agree.
And even if you doubt the evidence of tangled misdeeds, all you have to do is look out the window to see how farfetched thier claims are.
The CRU crew manned a wrecking ball to the data, and they were far from alone.
jmotivator (11:45:39) :
Back on topic, though, if you want to see the effect of climategate on the Hockey Team look no further than RealClimate.org.
That site is all but dead.
Where it used to be good for a few articles a day they have dropped to less than one a week!
————————-
I noticed that a few days ago – guess his blogging on work time is a bit tricky too now attention has been drawn to it, nevermind the rising sea level of bad news lapping at his desk
“single vaccines have NO link to autism”
Nor does dietary fat intake have any link to blood cholesterol but many people have repeated the results of a single flawed study to the point where it has become “conventional wisdom” to the extent that jurisdictions have “banned” trans-fats in food (NYC).
REPLY: Please let’s leave this off- topic where it is, further comments snipped. – A
Extended Interview:
Climate Science Leader Rajendra K. Pachauri Confronts the Critics
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5965/510/DC1
It’s very long, so just quote a little below.
Q: The other issue that dogged IPCC is the leaked e-mails from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, U.K.
R.K.P.: Those e-mails represent nothing more than private communications, private airing of anguish, or anger, or emotion. It was indiscreet.
But you know the people who worked on that report are outstanding individuals. They have spent years working on the science of climate change, and I cannot say who [leaked the e-mails]. There is an investigation going on at the moment at the behest of the British government, and the University of East Anglia has set up an independent investigation. We would have to await the outcome of these exercises.
Q: Has all that has happened this winter dented the credibility of IPCC?
R.K.P.: I don’t think the credibility of the IPCC can be dented. If the IPCC wasn’t there, why would anyone be worried about climate change?
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/climategate+the+email+trail/3519452 with video, worth a watch. 🙂
For a news programme that very much beats the drum, this is a departure.
Just a step back their coverage of Glaciergate included a wrap-up that exonerated the IPCC
Dave D (10:22:06) asks: “Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”?”
Of course he is. He’s a member of our Second Chamber. Whereas your Senators have to spend a few million to get elected, our Lords get nominated for being either (1) friends of William the Conqueror (2) friends of one of Charles II’s mistresses (3) Friends of Tony Blair or (4) Useless ex-politicians looking for a retirement home.
Lord Lawson has decided to redeem his political past by speaking out against the political consensus at http://www.thegwpf.org/
and good luck to him. Who needs democracy?
I like to think this is Nigel Lawson trying to make amends for being Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s government, from June 1983 to October 1989, and for the small part he must have played in that government releasing the spectre of AGW upon us in the U.K.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/
It was during his time as Chancellor that the Thatcher government actually agreed to set up the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research to bring together the disparate climate research functions going on in the Met Office at the time. The links with CRU we have come to know and ‘love’ were also formed during that time. And the rest…
I would like to be charitable and say that the Hadley Centre was announced in November 1989, just after Lawson resigned, but I’m afraid he was #2 during the time the Thatcher government embraced AGW and he was in charge of the finance… So I’m afraid he has to take his share of responsibility for bringing this evil upon us in the first place…
“Please let’s leave this off- topic where it is, further comments snipped. – A”
My apologies, I didn’t see that till after my previous was posted. Just wanted to point out that there are lots of one-off “studies” out there that are used to champion this or that position.
There is a big problem that needs to be solved: Currently there are virtually no centre or centre-left politicians or high profile people coming forward to challenge the conventional wisdom of the warmists. This might at first seem unimportant, until you realise that global warming issues have become almost wholly an argument between the right and the left.
There are plenty of people out there who are NOT right wing but who also do not accept the hype about global warming. They need to come forward and speak but I suspect many of them are reluctant. Such reluctance is understandable in the context of the zealous judgement of those on the left who say, repeatedly, that if you are not a subscriber to the warming hype then you MUST be an extreme right winger. The Guardian, which purports to be left of centre, pummels its readers daily with one-sided, faith-based IPCC rubbish masquerading as settled science.
Many Guardian readers consider you a betrayer if you so much as ask salient questions about global warming and the methods by which it has become established.
Lawson might have mellowed with age, but for some he is irretrievably linked to his chancellorship under Thatcher, which promoted individual greed, introduced devisive social and economic policy, and his demise was through the ramping of property and bank excesses which led to a very similar economic meltdown to the one we are now experiencing.
We need a few solid, traditional labour voters to come forward and join the sceptic movement. I believe there are many out there, but they need to come out of the closet and not be intimidated by their centre-left friends who see them as betrayers of the faith. Lawson, Monckton, UKIP MEPs, and various wafes and strays from old-Tory politics are in the end just ample fodder for the warmists to claim that sceptics are just a bunch of selfish, Thatcherite, right wing nutters.
“jmotivator (11:45:39) :
Back on topic, though, if you want to see the effect of climategate on the Hockey Team look no further than RealClimate.org.
That site is all but dead.[…]”
Packing suitcases, arranging plane tickets to Bolivia, getting visa, selling the GE stock, getting facial plastic surgery takes its toll on their time.
For photo of Lord Lawson, with Nigella his daughter, click to image 2 in this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554358/Women-fall-for-men-who-look-like-dad.html
An intelligent, honest, and reasonable letter by Lord Lawson which I enjoyed rereading a number of times. There is a soothing quality to his prose, IMO. He argues that for unimpeachable integrity of the process, the investigation must be public and the commission (foundation) should: 1) examine all emails, not just the published ones; 2) take evidence from both inside and outside CRU; 3) find out if science was suppressed in peer-reviewed journals; 4) engage the appropriate legal expertise; 5) include experts on statistical methods; and 6) function in the open and with transparency. We can’t ask for much more. And thanks for the links to his background and contributions. Impressive.
Perhaps Lucy Skywalker in on to something.
Lucy Skywalker (11:27:08) :
“We can still put it all down to mass delusions, which have happened before in human history. Tulip-mania anyone?”
Perhaps we humans may be “shaking it out” — finally — from turn-of-the-millenium fears and fevers — something akin psychologically to speculative manias, but directed more toward terrors of finality, of endings and separation. The warmists, after all, have been screaming that the world as we know it is coming to an end. One group or another has been delivering jeremiads for eons, but it takes something special for one to become a psychological-intellectual-political policy pandemic. This one has taken over every environmental organization, popular scientific publications, scientific journals, major professional scientific organizations, the entire mass media (for too long), much of academia, governments, my own (former) political party, corporations, even major energy corporations. Either this is a conspiracy the proportions of which have never happened before in history, and someone(s) is/are funding and directing it (not simply using it manipulatively), or we are living in a time of mass delusion — which will subside.
I am very grateful for those who have been able to keep their heads and wits about them in the face of such devastating opposition. Thanks, Anthony, for your part in all this, and for keeping those of us who have found (or never lost) our wits informed on a minute-by-minute basis about the resurrection of reason and science — and unimpeachable integrity.
It’s finally made the front page of the Norwich Evening News – which must have been REALLY hard for the editor. So far, his paper has barely mentioned the whole saga….
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/eveningnews24/norwich-news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=xNews&itemid=NOED28%20Jan%202010%2010%3A05%3A43%3A370
crosspatch (11:36:14) : “OT- but this is INSANE! A politically divided Securities and Exchange Commission voted on Wednesday to make clear when companies must provide information to investors about the business risks associated with climate change. The commission, in a 3 to 2 vote, decided to require that companies disclose in their public filings the impact of climate change on their businesses….”
Actually crosspatch that doesn’t sound too bad if you think that a couple of months ago the vote would have likely been 5 to zero. I call 3 to 2 progess.
Apologies for O/T, but of interest I think.
According to “Net-weather UK temperature tracker” the world’s oldest temperature record is starting 2010 a touch on the sluggish side.
http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=cet;sess=
The tracker updates hourly and at present has CET (Central England Temperature) average for January 2010 at 1.72c against a stated 1971-2000 average of 4.2c a difference of -2.48c!
I do not know how accurate this is, can’t find out where they get their data from or whether it is raw, poached, homogenised, pasteurised etc. I will keep looking, will be interesting to see what their final January number is.
It will have a “Happy Ending”, no doubt….
Warming Regards…
IPCC