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.
‘ Dave D (10:22:06) :
Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?’
Lord Lawson( Daughter Nigella… the cook) was one of the best Chancellors the UK ever had .. he speaks regularly on the ‘Global warming’ issues and is one of the finest and few really good politicians the UK ever produced.. having said that… The Labour party hated him…so thats all good…
This is what needs to be remembered:
any media outlet would jump on the opportunity to lead their newscast or headline their paper with the news that climate data were forged, and that there has in fact been no discernible warming, or any other significant pronouncement of the sort that had the requisite factual support. Any IPCC officer that steps down, any scientist that loses his job, anything that points to scandal, mischief, and malfeasance. That’s front page news. That’s a scoop. That’s what they live for.
They will do it at the first opportunity, and that opportunity is approaching with every day that passes. Just as the media have sold papers on building up the AGW story, they will sell double on tearing it down.
The media has been the enemy of the skeptic camp. They will turn around and become its biggest ally just as fast, if that is what sells better. And, again, that day is soon approaching. Long live the fickle media.
As has already been said, Lawson was in on the global warming “issue” from Day 1 under Thatcher. The UEA was given public money to “prove” it, and Thatcher gave her approval for the formation of the IPCC.
All we’ll see will be a lot of hand waving, smoke and mirrors, spin and then nothing, swept under the political carpet. Gordon Brown knows his, and his paty, days are numbered and the Tories aren’t any better, they are all keen to get their noses into the AGW gravy train.
.
And here is a reply to myself from the office of David Cameron (leader of the former Conservative Party – now the leader of the Real Modern Dude and Green Party.)
Dear Mr Ellis,
Thank you very much for getting in touch with David Cameron about your concerns over the integrity of climate scientists at the IPCC. I apologise for the delay in replying but over the last couple of months there has been a huge increase in the number of e-mails David has received each day and it taking us a little longer than usual to reply to each one.
I can see that you feel recent allegations have cast doubt over the case for climate change, and the integrity of the science. However, our view is that public policy on climate change has been built over many years, with input from a wide variety of expert sources, and we do need to significantly reduce our carbon emissions.
It is always right to keep an open mind, and question scientific theories. But, those in favour of doing nothing on the basis of scientific scepticism need to show that the risks we run by not acting are small and manageable. Given all the information and evidence we now have, that is a very difficult case to make.
I will, of course, ensure that David is made aware if your concerns, but I am afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Whatever your views are, we cannot afford not to go green. The UK economy is still dependent for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs on fossil fuels, which increasingly come from imports. With the era of cheap oil now well and truly over, our fossil fuel dependency is making us uncompetitive and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.
We can build a secure, prosperous future, but only if we start the work of transforming our national energy infrastructure now, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017, and it ensures that Britain’s consumers and businesses are protected against the consequences of volatile and rising oil prices into the future.
We need to make the transition to a low carbon economy urgently, and I hope you’ll agree that our plans for a Low Carbon Economy will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise skills and improve Britain’s competitiveness.
Thank you, once again, for taking the time and trouble to write.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny Stoker
.
There’s something symbolic about the CRU building. Reminds me of the old Norman fortresses. All it needs is a draw bridge to keep the unbelievers out.
“(Nigella Lawson, TV cook, very enticing to men of a certain age.)”
IMO, any hetero male of any age would find the delightfully pneumatic Nigella enticing.
Nigel Lawson is definitely a heavyweight. Highly intelligent and principled, with a lot of behind-the-scenes clout. I hated his guts when Thatcher was in power, but all is now forgiven…
Borderer
Lawson Nobel prize winner 2011.
Nigella should cook it and Nigel should eat it, shit it and send it back.
Lawson does mention in his book the role of the Thatcher goverment regarding the promotion of AGW and the establishment of CRU. At the time they were fighting to crush the coal miners unions, in the mid-1980s, and the point was to get more arguments to move from CO2-intensive coal into natural gas and nuclear. It was about getting as much political support as they could to move away from coal.
Veronica (England) (15:23:56) :
“…and Tenuc – what, in principle, is such a bad thing about unity?
The world united under one (unelected) government would be a disaster. It may
possibly prevent future wars, but would weaken humanity. Mankind has only progressed to what we are today through turmoil and conflict. Without this driver of change we will stagnate and die.
The freedom of an individual to choose his own future is paramount and I think the West has become very intolerant of this idea for the last century or so. Socialism is not the way to allow people to achieve their full potential. Without survival of the fittest the gene-pool will weaken over time and the human race will end.
Re: Ralph (Jan 28 23:38),
Snap, Ralph well nearly, this bit missing from mine “but I am afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this issue.”
Maybe I am getting a bit too polite in my old age.
“Dear Mr …………..
Thank you very much for getting in touch with David Cameron about your concerns over the integrity of climate scientists at the IPCC. I apologise for the delay in replying but over the past few weeks David has received a higher volume of e-mails each day than normal and it is taking us a little longer than usual to reply to each one.
I can see that you feel recent allegations have cast doubt over the case for climate change, and the integrity of the science. However, our view is that public policy on climate change has been built over many years, with input from a wide variety of expert sources, and we do need to significantly reduce our carbon emissions.
It is always right to keep an open mind, and question scientific theories. But, those in favour of doing nothing on the basis of scientific scepticism need to show that the risks we run by not acting are small and manageable. Given all the information and evidence we now have, that is a very difficult case to make.
I will, of course, ensure that David is made aware if your concerns.
Whatever your views are, we cannot afford not to go green. The UK economy is still dependent for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs on fossil fuels, which increasingly come from imports. With the era of cheap oil now well and truly over, our fossil fuel dependency is making us uncompetitive and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.
We can build a secure, prosperous future, but only if we start the work of transforming our national energy infrastructure now, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017, and it ensures that Britain’s consumers and businesses are protected against the consequences of volatile and rising oil prices into the future.
We need to make the transition to a low carbon economy urgently, and I hope you’ll agree that our plans for a Low Carbon Economy will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise skills and improve Britain’s competitiveness.
Thank you, once again, for taking the time and trouble to write.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Stoker”
I understand and support need for energy efficiency and conserving fossil fuels. My question was about basing a taxation system on the apparent misinformation produced by the IPCC. So therefore all the above can be reduced to:-
Question “What are the Conservative Party going to do about the misinformation from the IPCC”
Answer “Nothing”
Not good enough Mr Cameron, get some work done, do some due diligence, which is the minimum responsibility of any potential legislator. Fund both sides, investigate. Things have changed Mr Cameron it is now you who is proposing to do nothing! Not the so called sceptics, they have done a lot of your work for you, now it is your turn.
‘Dave D (10:22:06) :
Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?’
Lord Lawson is a man of integrity. Whether you agree with him on all things or not, he was a senior member of UK administration for a decade or so under Margaret Thatcher and was Chancellor of the Exchequer (which means he ran the Finance Ministry which here is called the Treasury) for much of that time. So he knows his way around politics, administration and the UK Establishment. He is also globally connected.
He was the author of a book ‘A cool look at global warming’, which I found to be a reasonable account of the issues and uncertainties facing politicians in the field of climate change. Once again, you may or may not agree with all he says, but it was written with cogency, logic and integrity.
He has just founded a new Foundation to look at the issues of Climate Change, not in terms of science but in terms of practical economics and politics. One hopes that it is successful. Lord Monckton is also part of that new Foundation.
We’ll see how things pan out, but he is certainly about the most experienced person in the UK to support a more realistic opinion on climate change.
Quote: Tenuc (03:50:02) :
“The world united under one (unelected) government would be a disaster. . .
The freedom of an individual to choose his own future is paramount . . .”
I agree, Tenuc. Democracy itself is at stake.
Climategate has revealed the shadowy outline of an international alliance of politicians, scientists, publishers and other news media using science as a propaganda tool in an undemocratic plan to unite the entire world under one unelected government, likely headed Al Gore.
That is why the US’s NAS, NASA and the UN’s IPCC united together to mold science into world-wide propaganda of CO2-induced global warming.
Earth’s climate is changing, has always changed, and will continue to do so; Earth’s heat source is a variable star: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
Scientists associated with NAS, NASA and the UN’s IPCC know the facts, but took funds and distorted data in favor of CO2-induced global warming.
The strange alliance of George Bush and Tony Blair – to invade Iraq and then police the rest of the world – and the “discovery” of oscillating solar neutrinos are probably all indications of the same international alliance of politicians, scientists, publishers and major news sources.
Thanks to WUWT and others for keeping the spotlight of public attention focused on the Climategate iceberg.
Much more filth will be revealed as this melts under public scrutiny.
With kind regards,
OLiver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Unbelievable! An unelected government under Al Gore. That is the wackiest conspiracy theory I ever heard! Please can we detach ourselves from this kind of thinking because it will cause us to be ridiculed by the warmists – and rightly.
“Whatever your views are, we cannot afford not to go green. The UK economy is still dependent for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs on fossil fuels, which increasingly come from imports. With the era of cheap oil now well and truly over, our fossil fuel dependency is making us uncompetitive and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.
We can build a secure, prosperous future, but only if we start the work of transforming our national energy infrastructure now, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017, and it ensures that Britain’s consumers and businesses are protected against the consequences of volatile and rising oil prices into the future. ”
Jenny Stoker quoted above by Green Sand.
I tend to agree with her. We should be moving to a lower carbon economy because the fossil fuels are in the control of dubious countries, and that is a bigger imperative for Europe than you can understand in North America because we don’t have substantial reserves of our own.
But if CAGW is a big hype, then we can do it calmly and rationally and without panic, and without lots of money being diverted into unnecessary and expensive schemes that do no good whatsoever.
John Whitman (19:12:06) :
“…. A unity as the result of many individuals each independently/voluntarily arriving at a conclusion/idea is healthy for a society (see various blogs). “
This is exactly the strategy being used to get the vast majority of people to accept world government, with the MSM set up to be the fabricators of public opinion. The Zeitgeist seems to be a socialist agenda to solve all the worlds problems through central control. I think this is why CAGW will be quietly dropped and the next ‘world disaster’ will be foisted upon us.
Ralph and Green sand,
Don’t be fobbed off with that pro forma letter. Demand a meeting. Go down there armed with the pertinent facts and lay it on the line. IMO, these are:
1) Renewable energy doesn’t create jobs, it destroys them – see the Madrid report and basic micro economics – higher energy prices equals lower productivity.
2) Building windmills will not give Britain energy independence since they need to be backed up with conventional power stations.
3) The more the energy costs rise, the more business will relocate to China or India – see the Corus fiasco.
4) No other country in the world has yet passed binding legislation.
There are probably other arguments, and none of them touch on the question of climate science – that is the important point.
I am sure that lord Lawson is aware of this stunning analysis of the Climategate emails, by John Costella.Lets hope these are fully publicized in any enquiry. Talk about a smoking gun!
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
“I tend to agree with her. We should be moving to a lower carbon economy because the fossil fuels are in the control of dubious countries, and that is a bigger imperative for Europe than you can understand in North America because we don’t have substantial reserves of our own.”
There’s a lot of double think going on about importing fossil fuels. Why are we concerned about importing oil, when every day we happily import food (more important imo), consumer goods and raw materials? This whole argument has been hijacked by the warmists and used as a backup excuse for cutting fossil fuels.
How much oil actually comes from these “evil” countries? Well
1) opec is now a minority exporter.
2) Canada exports more oil than Saudi Arabia.
3) Most opec oil exporters are also gasoline importers, thus underlying the trully interdepdence of the fossil fuel market, just as it should be.
The idea that there is something special about oil such that the laws of global trade do not apply is just plain nuts!
Re Lack of Fossil Fuels in the UK, we still have a lot of that horrible, but very efficient COAL in Britain, but of course that lovely Mrs Thatcher & totally incompetent British Coal have made it a bit harder to get out.
With all that Coal underground we are Imported 43.9 million tonnes in 2008.
Sorry,
With all that Coal underground we have Imported 43.9 million tonnes in 2008.
Dave D (10:22:06) :
Looks like this is still heading in the right direction! Some of you Brits, is this Lord a “good guy”? Does he have enough pull to shine the light in on the process?
Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer (Minister of Finance) in Margaret Thatcher’s government 20 years ago. He has as much clout politically as is necessary! He has published on “Global Warming” in UK. He is a “good guy.”
@John Arthur (10:38:19) :
@Anopheles (like the name!) “He used to be someone in Thatcher’s govt.”
He was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and got this country (UK) straightened out financially only to have our current lot squander it all and more. Forget Nigella, Nigel is a well-respected heavyweight and I doubt this will be ignored.
//
That’s all very well, saying “Forget Nigella”, but when she is falling out of a silk dressing gown on TV in front of you, whilst molesting a chocolate cake, it’s not very easy to … forget her.
Tip of the hat. MAJOR tip of the hat to all these folk working on debunking this scam.