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.
Rob (12:10:01)
Talk about missing points – it seems to have escaped your notice that there is absolutely no evidence that the combined MMR vaccine has any link with autism. There was only the specious claim by Wakefield which misled probably hundreds of thousands into failing to have their children vaccinated. But this discussion should not be taking place on WUWT, despite certain similarities with the global warming debate as mentioned in this Telegraph article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/7095727/MMR-a-sorry-episode.html
One quote to whet your appetite “There must be a place for scepticism in science, or any other field: it is important for the prevailing orthodoxy to be challenged, because it is not always right.”
Note for trolls – this is a selective quote but the subsequent comment in the article is in my opinion ambiguous – draw your own conclusions.
Nigel Lawson still has a lot of clout in the UK and is sure to stand his ground against the alarmists of the British Establishment.
However, what concerns me is that he is likely to be undermined by the official stance of the opposition conservative party – it used to be Conservative with a big C, but those days are long gone – who have blindly followed British government policy, in a futile attempt to be counted amongst those who ‘have saved the world’ – our prime minister’s public description of himself.
John R. Walker (12:34:13) writes:
“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….
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.”
I have heard this claim a number of times in one form or another. I hope someone who is open to “both sides” can clarify the issues. My questions are: Is this the beginning of (?) who desired the demise of Western capitalistic societies (they could no longer make a profit making products and wanted to get “the people’s savings)? Or was it reasonable at the time to explore if there was something serious to the fear the confluence of “global warming” and the by-products of industrialization?
“Green Sand”
According to Bastardi, it is worse in Berlin:
And he is calling for a colder than normal February as well.
Sorry, the comment above submitted before I was finished. I was referring to John R. Walker (12:34:13) The last paragraph:
Why did Thatcher’s government begin the interest in investigating “global warming”? My questions are: 1) Is this the beginning of THE CONSPIRACY to destroy Western capitalist societies — by whom — global corporatists?, who could no longer make profits from making products so they turned to government favors via taxes paid to them to do the government’s “bidding”, e.g., build clean energy? Or 2) Was it reasonable at the time to explore if there was something serious to fear in the confluence of “global warming” and the by-products of industrialization?
“Rob (12:10:01) :
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.”
But MMR has no link to autism either. The idea was ramped up by Dr Wakefield and the mainstream media so that it became a real scare story. The fact that Dr Wakefield now faces the possibility of being struck off the medical register reflects the fact that none of his claims could be scientifically verified. There was a total lack of proper peer review (sound familiar?).
I believe Lord Lawson is due to appear on the BBCs ‘Question Time’ tonight (Thurs 10.35pm GMT)
It might be worth a look in. BBC warmists may censor questions relating to this agenda.
Sorry I went off topic at 13:34, presumably to be imminently snipped. I replied to a comment before reading further down that it was not to be followed up.
Link to the BBC ‘Question Time’ website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/default.stm
Sorry if this is O/T everyone but I feel I must respond to JohnH. His remarks about Dr. Wakefield go straight to the nub of the problem. If it is a fact that he conspired with others to silence debate, cherry pick data, and make personal attacks on his opponents then perhaps this may be an appropriate forum to mention his name. Otherwise, he seems to be a clinical researcher asking the essential “what if questions” who unfortunately got spotlighted by the MSM.
We may want the warmists to suffer a similar (worse!) fate but surely not because of their passion for what they might believe to be justice for the third world. It is how how they have abused science to get their aims that cries out for justice.
If scientists are to be punished for having proposed something that later proves to be false, science is dead and so is the future of mankind.
pyromancer76,
or 3) Was it simply that Thatcher wanted a big part on the world stage where her specialist scientific background would offer an unassailable advantage? I mean, we see the same sort of cringe-worthy posturing today by the likes of Brown and Krudd.
Here’s a (brief) BBC TV interview with David Holland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8484385.stm
The 6pm BBC news today (Jan 28) had an item reporting the FoI investigation of the CRU. In response from a question from the newsreader, David Shukman,, an Environment Correspondent, claimed that some of the FoI requests to the CRU were ‘malicious’! (Anybody got a video clip of it. It would make good viewing.) He also did the usual turn of saying that none of the Climategate business undermined the claims of climate scientists about global warming.
Pyro,
I would submit…
3) An attempt to beef up any theory that would build a case against coal as a major local industry. This was a time of almost civil war between the Thatcher govt and the miners (which were part of what was a very powerful union at that time), and unions in general.
Talk about unintended consequences…..
Lucy Skywalker (11:34:10) :
Anthony it must get hot sitting where you sit, right now. Can we help?
REPLY: Thanks for that perception and offer. I just need to focus on getting the paper done. – A
More power to your elbow Anthony.
Nigel Lawson is an old school Tory, and of sufficient independence not to give a rats rectum what the media says about him.
Nigella [cooking] … mmmmm. 🙂
Rob (12:10:01) :
Give me a grant to find one & I will!
DaveE.
Sorry Anthony.
I hadn’t read your reply on this OT. I felt it was important because the method was similar. Grants for results that is.
DaveE.
.
Lord Lawson is definitely a coolist – here is his book on Climate Change.
“”An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming””
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Appeal-Reason-Cool-Global-Warming/dp/0715638416/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264716916&sr=1-1
.
@Mick J @Rob
Re: The Channel 4 ‘Climategate’ piece this evening
Thanks for the link. I tracked down the journo (Katie Razzall) behind this story and just sent this note.
…………….
Katie,
First of all, thank you for your report this evening on the ‘Climategate’ story. A refreshing piece.
Apart from one element….
You are no doubt aware that the government’s Science and Technology Committee recently announced 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).
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm
Phil Willis, the chairman of this committee was recently quoted in the Telegraph, stating:
“There are a significant number of climate deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so that the public can see what they are saying.”
Mr Willis was subsequently questioned on his use of the phrase ‘climate deniers’, and acknowledged that such a phrase could be perceived as has having an inherent bias. He has stated that intends not to use that phrase in the future.
(I’ve tried to find a link to his intention, without success I’m afraid. However, it does exist somewhere in cyberspace should you wish to check.)
Your piece opened this evening referring to ‘climate change deniers’.
Would you also agree with Mr Willis that this phrase could be perceived as has having an inherent bias?
If you do, would you consider future reports referring to such people as ‘sceptics’, as opposed to ‘deniers’ (which I’m sure you’re aware, has unsubtle holocaust overtones).
Further, the majority of ‘sceptics’ are not sceptical of climate change. Indeed, having studied the science, most readily accept that the climate is changing – as it is always has, and always will.
‘Man-made climate change sceptics’ is a bit of a mouthful, but I trust you get my point.
Incidentally, should you wish to find out more about the sceptical viewpoint, I would encourage you to visit http://wattsupwiththat.com/.I think you’ll find it a useful resource.
For what it’s worth, I believe that this issue will turn out to be THE story of 2010. A journalist with a good grasp of all its many dimensions could contribute a great deal to the public’s understanding.
Warm regards,
Paul Hannay, Glasgow.
PS. If you have the time, I’d appreciate if you could let me know your thoughts on ‘denier’ vs ‘sceptic’ for future broadcasts. Thank you.
.
Here is Nigella Lawson, the famous cook and daughter of Nigel Lawson.
Apparently, most of her recipes have a couple of good tips …. 😉
http://grrlplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nigellalawson_468x623.jpg
.
I wonder what the true believers think of a public inquiry? They love to claim, it is the skeptics that are secretly funded by big oil with a secret agenda. Do they have faith in the truth?
Great news! Nigel Lawson is a very big hitter to have on your side with much influence in the senior Tory party. I think there’s a good chance that he will get his public enquiry and we’ll really find out what the CRU/GISS/IPCC et al have been so desperate to hide.
Dave Ward (12:47:46)
I read the article from the Norwich Evening News.
Either the photograph of Phil Jones is more up to date than the one we usually see, or he has aged 30 years with all the worry! 🙂
If everybody pushes to free the data and free the code the debate will be opened.
They can and will make light of every other position you take. But to date NOBODY has mounted a serious rational challenge to the demand for transparency.
http://www.lulu.com/content/e-book/climategate-the-crutape-letters/8243144
He’s on the BBC1 Question Time panel right now!
Lucy Skywalker (11:27:08) :
“We can still put it all down to mass delusions, which have happened before in human history…”
I wish it were that simple. This isn’t mass delusion, it is just one of many carefully spun pieces of propaganda designed to lead public opinion to the consensus that we must have a world government.
As polls prove, many people disagree that CAGW will happen, so this particular strategum will be quietly dropped, The scientists will be used as scape-goats (already started in the MSM) and the politicians will wriggle off the hook to fight for the next strategy to scare the peoples of the world into unity.