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.
I never fail to be surprised by just how informative this site is. Take today as an example. I find out how coral islands are created and maintained. I was fascinated.
That’s not all. The Czech republic is being sued by certain inhabitants of coral islands – helped by a one-time friend of Lubos.
There’s more but there always is on WUWT!
The nascent findings of the surface station survey had been mugged, by public servants, to create a pre-emptive defence of the “settled science” that no matter how poor the data is, the consensus results are unaffected, aka Robust!
My initial feelings, re this action, were tainted by a vestige of humanitarianism.
“Poor fools” I mused. “Just because someone handed you a spade, why did you restart digging?”
Milliseconds later, I regained my senses!
Once Anthony decides to play his hand, supported by peer-review and inescapable logic, he will release his dogs of war. EMS et al, I do so look forward to the “What happens next”
Now I find out that Lord Lawson is Bro’ in Law to the the venerable Christopher. Superb. I never liked Lord Lawson because of his association to Lady Thatcher. I was wrong to do so. This man has courage, intelligence and an integrity that makes him challenge the very establishment that I had assumed he represented.
How wrong I was.
The incumbent politicians are locked into the co2 scam for a simple reason. It’s nothing to do with a left/right agenda, Cameron the current opposition Tory leader has been content to go along with it for a simple reason.
TAX.
Nigella [cooking]
Nothing fancy, a couple of muffins and a cuppa char will do.
http://www.teachmychildrenwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nigella.jpg
The good thing about Lord Lawson is that he might be a little more moderate in his language than Lord Monckton of UKIP. And being from a mainstream political party, he lends credibility to the cause. He will probably not come over as a loony right winger.
and Tenuc – what, in principle, is such a bad thing about unity?
RayG – off topic
What Wakefield did wrong was: A) to take blood samples from children at a birthday party without the consent of them or their parents, B) conduct clinical research without the approval of an ethics committee, C) take money from a firm of lawyers who were trying to make a profit out of damages claims against vaccine companies, and D) make unwarranted assertions about the MMR vaccine without interpreting the rather sparse data properly.
He therefore broke the rules of his profession, put himself in a position where he was open to corruption for money, and misinterpreted data either knowingly or out of ignorance. He caused much public consternation which resulted in wrong decisions being made.
There are some parallels with the CRU and IPCC.
LeonardYoung (12:36:22) :
“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….”
Leonard, it’s not a problem, its just that this will be the next step. In the case of AGW alarmism it is naturally easier for the truth to emerge through right-wing, conservatives and anti-environmentalists ranks. Thus these Lawson, Monckton etc…and these through Fox News etc. That they are prepared to stand up against the propaganda is too their credit, and they should be applauded what-ever their history, interests and other agendas.
What is hard for those doubters on the left is that they are used to expecting a propaganda story from the right with a real story underneath. Thus, there might be a good right wing reason for invading Iraq but it is not the one used to sell it (destroying WMDs, reducing terrorism, introducing democracy etc). In this case where the left has the upper hand we have a good left wing/green argument for better management of non-renewable resources, but this is not it.
Michael Crichton found AGW alarmism as the latest in a growing trend in junk science of a particular kind. One previous example was the supposed ill-health effects of passive smoking, and this as the over-extension of a confident anti-smoking lobby. It might be junk science but who wants to side with the pro-tobacco lobby? Who wants smoke filled restaurants? etc. AGW alarmism is similar and yet in many ways it is unprecedented – certainly in the magnitude of its social impact, and in its apocalyptic extremism. This makes it historically interesting, but this is also why your lefties are so caught of guard, and then guarded: So you are telling me there is this gigantic CONSPIRACY OF SCIENTISTS and that only ex-Thatcherites and Fox news presenters know about it? Yeh right!
And the price of dissent in left/environmentalist circles is still very high. For those with reputations at stake it will take some time for any of them to risk follow the likes of David Bellamy. But the price of dissent is decreasing daily. Consider that the media favoured by the left – media that have resisted climategate (BBC, Fairfax) – are now covering glaciergate and in so doing they are back-telling the whole story. Methinks its only a matter of time…and of who.
Crichton:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
Bellamy:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-price-of-dissent/story-e6frg7b6-1111118127677
Just watched the Newsnight program… Climate change was the last question to the panel and not opened to audience questions BUT
Lawson got his point across well 🙂
The panel agreed in main – Gov’t bod (sorry, didn’t get names..) looked very stupid and got taken apart 🙂
Even teh sun journo agreed it was overblown and “not certain science” lolz
A good start. Let’s see where it goes from here!
BBC question time tonight, not much time, last subject but three sceptics on panel including Lord Lawson, it`s a start.
Stupendous, simply unbelievable!
The flagship BBC program, Question Time, has just finished.
Lord Lawson, Imo, had been chompin’ at the bit to get his opinion on AGW/CC aired. In the last few minutes he got his wish. He said his bit, the other panellists got likewise. The presenter, Mr D. had his say.
Apart from one panel person, a bloke called Bradshaw, the mood was clear. Climate Science is no more settled than a vertical HB pencil in an earthquake zone!
The camera panned, as it does, to the audience. Some, clearly, were unhappy- guardianistas to a life-form I’d guess, but they kept quiet.
The British public are now overwhelmingly suspicious of CAGW alarmism. Those that aren’t are swithering.
Yup, nigel is a good bloke even though he has more hair than he’s entitled to!
That’s just jealousy on my part though:)
^^ duh, Question Time.
Soz. Shows how much I watch the BBC!
Scaryoldcortina
Question Time (not Newsnight).
Lawson did well (but pressured by Dimbleby)
Ben Bradshaw (Labour MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, not a scientist) said the overwhelming majority of scientists supported the evidence for AGW. He then turned around the MMR example to support his view saying that Wakefield’s evidence was finally disproved by the, yes, overwhelming majority of scientists. Most others on the panel disagreed with him but he still got some claps from the audience.
On the SEC requiring companies to show actions v AGW, I looked this up and it’s been going on a few years. It’s often Soros funded groups who spend all day on these things. It may have been a 3-2 vote on party lines, but the republican party has not stood up about this issue. Their own choice for repub. presidential candidate was a big AGW and cap and trade promoter, McCain. A republican pollster Frank Luntz recently hired himself to the Environmental Defense Fund to help them persuade republicans that AGW is a great thing to get behind. Even-as Obama said last night, if it really isn’t true it’s still a good idea. Soros doesn’t like losing, which is why he had Obama take a shot at the Supreme Court, trying to intimidate them into changing their vote next time around.
…and then Ben Bradshaw accused Lord Lawson of being a scaremongerer!!
He got chance to pitch his argument against alarmism on Question Time this evening. It was good to hear his arguments and it was telling that the majority of the panel agreed that the science was not settled, with this opening the doorway to full and frank debate again.
We shall see what we shall see. Perhaps with a public inquiry we might get to see some finger pointing – that ought to be fun.
As regards Lord Lawson, he has for some years expressed a cautious (may be not skeptic view) to AGW. However, his main position is that if money needs to be spent in tackling AGW it is preferential to trat the symptons rather than the cause, ie., he considers that rather than spending money on curbing CO2, it is better to spend money dealing with the problems (say flood defence, loss of crops), if and when such disatsers arise. He is very much against the Stern report.
Tonight the BBC aired a show called Question Time. This is a weekly screened political debate. Lawson was on the panel and he was critical of the evidence which Climategate has revealed, ie., his stance was not that this is unlawful theft of e-mails/data but rather he emphasied the manipulation of data and suppresion of opposing scientific views. Several MPS (a labour minister and a liberal democrat) went on about how AGW is certain and real. Lawson responded saying that even the Government’s chief scientific adviser says that things are not so cwertain and we need a proper and open debate so that the public can make up its own mind.
It was good to see this have some air time on a mainstream channel in the UK. if only to let the public know that there is still some debate.
(Re Dr Wakefield) Veronica – but you fail to list conspiracy, so in my mind the similarities pale into insignificance.
Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qllwk/Question_Time_Basildon/
About 49 minutes in.
Watched BBC1 Question Time. Lord Lawson was quite hesitant and measured in his reply, supporting further debate, perhaps too mindful of the pro-AGW position of the Tory party leadership. Looking at the expressions of audience, (carefully selected for balance by the BBC.) it seemed they were as polarised as the panel. No winners or losers here but at least there will now be a debate which will be necessary to give the politicians some space to extricate themselves. (Too much to hope for a complete wipe-out of the lot of them).
No points for guessing who will be the fall guys.
The BBC political staff must be spitting tacks! The audience for Question Time is supposed to be impartially chosen across political views but it’s always very skewed (I know why as I once applied, or at least got so far as trying to fill out the form, but it was too intrusive. Also there was a huge furore after 9/11 when the US Ambassador was attacked on the show iirc). They must be very annoyed at the wall of silence being breached tonight!
Meanwhile, what on earth is Phil Jones doing still in situ? Surely any academic under investigation for destroying or manipulating data should not be on the premises? Given that Prince Charles greeted him at CRU yesterday, pressure needs to be kept up relentlessly. Do sign the petition if you are are a UK citizen (ex-pats may sign)
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/?signed=fc77751.3ec77d
Meanwhile OT but this is the current thread, and it’s important – anyone thinking of submitting to the PCS&T CRU enquiry, please do read the thread on CA dealing with what/how etc.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/22/uk-parliamentary-inquiry-into-cru/#comment-217765
It’s very important that only those with standing submit to the Committee
See esp this post by Jim Edwards Jan 23, 2010 at 1:21 am:
[Regarding what “interest’ means, JE explains very clearly]
“The requirements for submissions are remarkably similar to those for filing Amicus briefs [‘friends of the court’ briefs] in US Federal Appellate courts.
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February
[snip]
Each “interested party’s” written evidence at the end of report begins with a “statement of interest.” As in US appellate practice, the statement of interest is not a statement that says “I think the subject is cool”, or “I believe there’s a conspiracy going on.”
The statement of interest is a description that explains why the party submitting evidence has legal standing to be involved in the case. “Interested parties” will likely include:
People who actually are involved in the controversy …..”
[He goes on to list all likely such catregories]
AKA Organized Clime.
” Veronica (England) (15:23:56) : and Tenuc – what, in principle, is such a bad thing about unity? ”
Unity as a political or idealogical goal is dangerous at best (see history of all authoritarian societies). A unity as the result of many individuals each independently/voluntarily arriving at a conclusion/idea is healthy for a society (see various blogs).
John
@ur momisugly PaulH from Scotland (14:21:09) :
Regarding “deniers.” How about if we rebrand ourselves as “denniers”? (Pronounced Denny-ers.) It’s nice and idiotic, just like “deniers.” (Which is the point our use of the word will subtly insinuate.)
Lucy Skywalker (11:27:08) : Times Article.
“Apart from Vicky Pope’s little article set alongside (she’s in denial)”
Blimey Lucy, ain’t she just! I love her line in the article saying….
“They do not call into question the robustness of the surface temperature record produced by UEA”.
You really could not make this stuff up!
Methinks Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, should be looking for another job before the BBC etc kicks her and the rest of her mates into touch!
But this is an elite delusion. It’s not the madness of crowds. The guilty parties are stark staring sane.
Lucy Skywalker (11:34:10) :
Another interesting thing about the Times article reply by Vicky Pope, Head mouthpiece for the Met,
Her current boss, is he not the same man who was head of the WWF when the “Glacier Melting by 2035” incident took place?