Via the SPPI blog
[Note: The original picture of the parliament build has been replaced by this excellent cartoon by Josh via his email invitation]
Source: The Register (please visit as they are online advertiser supported only)
Russell report is inadequate, says Stringer
By Andrew Orlowski (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
Parliament was misled and needs to re-examine the Climategate affair thoroughly after the failure of the Russell report, a leading backbench MP told us today.
“It’s not a whitewash, but it is inadequate,” is Labour MP Graham Stringer’s summary of the Russell inquiry report. Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry.
Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry. Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations. This is a serious charge.
After the Select Committee heard oral evidence on March 1, MPs believed that Anglia had entrusted an examination of the science to a separate inquiry. Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia Edward Acton had told the committee that “I am hoping, later this week, to announce the chair of a panel to reassess the science and make sure there is nothing wrong.”[Hansard – Q129]] [1]
Ron Oxburgh’s inquiry eventually produced a short report clearing the participants. He did not reassess the science, and now says it was never in his remit. “The science was not the subject of our study,” he confirmed [2] in an email to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit.
Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the “sleight of hand”.
“Oxburgh didn’t go as far as I expected. The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash,” Graham Stringer told us.
Stringer says Anglia appointee Muir Russell (a civil servant and former Vice Chancellor of Glasgow University), failed in three significant areas.
“Why did they delete emails? The key question was what reason they had for doing this, but this was never addressed; not getting to the central motivation was a major failing both of our report and Muir Russell.”
Graham Stringer
Stringer also says that it was unacceptable for Russell (who is not a scientist) to conclude that CRU’s work was reproducible, when the data needed was not available. He goes further:
“The fact that you can make up your own experiments and get similar results doesn’t mean that you’re doing what’s scientifically expected of you. You need to follow the same methodology of the process.”
“I was surprised at Phil Jones’ answers to the questions I asked him [in Parliament]. The work was never replicable,” says Stringer.
In 2004 Jones had declined to give out data that would have permitted independent scrutiny of their work, explaining that “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
This policy is confirmed several times in the emails, with Jones also advising colleagues to destroy evidence helpful to people wishing to reproduce the team’s results.
“I think that’s quite shocking,” says Stringer.
Thirdly, the University of East Anglia failed to follow the Commons Select Committee’s recommendations in handling the inquiry and producing the report.
Stringer said, “We asked them to be independent, and not allow the University to have first sight of the report. The way it’s come out is as an UEA inquiry, not an independent inquiry.”
Stringer also says they reminded the inquiry to be open – Russell had promised as much – but witness testimony took place behind closed doors, and not all the depositions have been published.
How independent was the panel?
Muir Russell’s team heard only one side of the story, failing to call witnesses who were the subjects of the emails – Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit is mentioned over one hundred times in the archive – who may have given a different perspective. Nor was any active climate scientist supportive of climate change policy but critical of the CRU team’s behaviour – Hans Storch or Judith Curry, let alone the prominent sceptics, for example – summoned. Stringer feels their presence would have provided vital context.
University of East Anglia Vice Chancellor Edward Acton
The panel included Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet and a vocal advocate of mitigation against climate change (in 2007 he described [3] global warming “the biggest threat to our future health”) and Geoffrey Boulton a climate change advisor to the UK government and the EU, who spent 16-years at the University of East Anglia [4] – the institution under apparently ‘independent’ scrutiny.
In several areas the CRU academics were given the benefit of the doubt because a precedent had been set – often by the academics themselves.
The British establishment has a poor record of examining its own conduct. The 1983 Franks Report into events leading up to the Falklands Invasion exonerated the leading institutions and decision-makers, so too did the Hutton Report into the Invasion of Iraq.
For Stringer, policy needs to be justified by the evidence.
“Vast amounts of money are going to be spent on climate change policy, it’s billions and eventually could be trillions. Knowing what is accurate and what is inaccurate is important.”
“I view this as a Parliamentarian for one of the poorest constituencies in the country. Putting up the price of fuel for poor people on such a low level of evidence, hoping it will have the desired effect, is not acceptable. I need to know what’s going on.”
Climategate may finally be living up to its name. If you recall, it wasn’t the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up. Now, ominously, three inquiries into affair have raised more questions than there were before.
All these so-called inquiries/investigations are the equivalent of parents of schoolyard bullies admonishing their little delinquents to play nice while pretending that their little angels did nothing seriously wrong.
Whitewash works for me.
What did you expect, when government stooges investigate government stooges about a program that would brings oodles of new taxes to government stooges. It’s not hard to see the real problem.
There have been three ‘independent’ enquiries now.
It would be very useful if anyone has the original terms of refernce to post them here. I suspect it was never in the original remit to ask ‘awkward’ questions.
Tonyb
I keep reading about the great intellects in this government. How come, then, that they cannot see how unsatisfactory these inquiries have been? Do they really wish to cripple the UK economically – Blair and Brown probably, but I had hoped Cameron might be able to see the truth when it stared him in the face, even against his rather settled prejudices. I guess it takes a bigger man than Dave!
Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although she leaped with all her strength. As she went away, the fox remarked, ‘Oh, you aren’t even ripe yet! I don’t need any sour grapes.’
I don’t think academics can be independent – they would be too afraid of the blackballing they would get and the career-ending cut-off of funds for their research, even if it was in a field far removed from climate science. Basically, all academic institutions are tied up in this inglorious affair. I hope the MP has a lot of clout in this area. If so, we may spawn a real inquiry with all the actors on both sides participating.
What is stopping a different group from conducting a real enquiry? Maybe a retired member of the Supreme Court as chairman.
Gary Pearce: Don’t forget that Andrew Montford of The Hockey Stick Illusion fame has been tasked by the GWPF to investigate and report on the inquiries. See http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1204-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries-announced.html
I really don’t believe that warmers are that stupid…
But can’t come up with any other explanation as to why they would think some game like this would work.
Just for entertainment value alone, claiming scientific work can be reproduced, when the source claims the data was lost and can’t be retrieved, is worth it’s weight in gold.
villabolo says [ … ]
I didn’t hear the band strike up Send In The Clowns.
villabolo says:
July 10, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although she leaped with all her strength. As she went away, the fox remarked, ‘Oh, you aren’t even ripe yet! I don’t need any sour grapes.’
But some of the grapes in the bunch were rotten and very soon the whole bunch was overcome by the corruption and fell upon the ground, whereupon neither beast nor fowl would touch them and left them to wither and turn back to dust. Eventually all that remained to be seen was the stain, and the stain was called climategate.
What I would Like, personally, would be for several, actual independant, investigations into this whole climategate thing, not from the organization iteslf!!
What do you think they will say if they are, (In a Sense) investigating themselves?
Certainly it can be reproduced! It was made up originally. Just make it up again! I think I detect a Freudian Slip.
villabolo says:
July 10, 2010 at 12:32 pm
How would you feel if only Steve McIntyre and company had been questioned in this “investigation”? How balanced is an enquiry that only questions the defense? You and your ilk would be screaming bloody murder !! We are only crying foul, as it certainly applies in this case. Muir Russel’s selection was clearly made to bias the inquiry, never mind the rest of the panel. None of the questions that should have been asked of Phil Jones was never even close to being addressed. Questions that are relevant to the case. The determination that CRU should be more “open” with their research is probably still being giggled about at the U of E. A. The scientific method has been left out in the cold (pun intentional).
If you recall, it wasn’t the burglary or use of funding that led to the impeachment of Nixon, but the cover-up.
Ok, so there’s a glimmer of hope.
Did the regime stooges believe that their whitewash cover ups would work and that nobody would ask awkward questions? Just how stupid do you have to be to commit such a slapdash cover up and expect to get away with it?
Did the regime and its stooges expect the media to cover for them? Well yes they did and the media by and large will cover for them, the new media is a different kettle of fish altogether. It seems the establishment regime and its stooges have yet to fully comprehend that the old way of doing business is finished, the establishment can buy many things and it has great power but all that power and influence counts for little now.
Those with nothing to gain from the establishment cannot be bought off with titles and high positions and so the mighty state has a weakness after all doesnt it? Who would be a regime stooge pimping out their integrity for a few coins and petty trimmings and who would sell their honesty for the states favours? I have little else but my integrity and I wouldnt sell it for all the titles and baubles in the world.
Villabolo,
You may not have noticed, but the guys crying foul are Willis and Stringer, members of the British parliament who sat on the first enquiry and are claiming to have been misled. Not being avowed sceptics, they can hardly be accused of demonstrating sour grapes.
Stringer is still on the parliamentary science and technology committee, and so still has clout. I believe he’s an ex party whip, which means he knows how to get things moving, and unlike few others in the whole sorry affair, actually understands science. He’s totally the wrong guy to have antagonised. My guess is that Acton et al are currently apprehensive; and if so, with good cause.
may thay hang there heads in shame and close the joint down and turn it into a fun park
They are painting themselves into a corner. The evidence of a catastrophic warming of the earth is not there for the man in the street to see. The rising cost of energy is hurting the man in the street who cannot afford the cost needed to keep warm in winter. The sight of thousands windmills being built in the landscape offends the ordinary people. While the MSN may not be reporting much of this or perhaps reporting ‘slanted’ versions of it, the responses to writers of articles on this subject in these papers show that the public is becoming increasingly aware of the scam. Graham Stringer’s comment will resonate with the general public. I expect a groundswell of public opprobrium to develop over this, especially in Britain where the new stringent tax burden is hitting hard. Ordinary people can spot a cover up quite well (Watergate comes to mind). Nobody likes being lied to. The people simply cannot tolerate the crippling cost of this nonsense. Ultimately, the politician is answerable to the people. When they see a change in public opinion, and that is already evident, then they will abandon their support for AGW to remain in power.
Its gobsmacking arrogance.
Acton and the University of East Anglia failed to follow the Commons Select Committee’s recommendations in handling the inquiry and producing the report.
They must have felt that all parts of the Establishment were “onside” and all that was required was “to go through the motions” of an enquiry.
Their blatant bad faith will dig a bigger hole for themselves and their bogus trickery.
Does Muir Russel and the East Anglia Chancellors drive clown cars to work … or, do they believe the general public does?
W-H-I-T-E-W-A-S-H
This was picked up by Lawrence Solomon at the National Post too:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/10/lawrence-solomon-reopen-climategate-hearings-says-uk-parliamentarian/
It was a whitewash – Stringer is being too nice.
Sleight of hand? What about “Sleight of tongue”?
tonyb says:
July 10, 2010 at 12:28 pm (Edit)
There have been three ‘independent’ enquiries now.
It would be very useful if anyone has the original terms of refernce to post them here. I suspect it was never in the original remit to ask ‘awkward’ questions.
If you want to avoid having to give awkward answers, keep ’em asking the wrong questions.
Great article. Be sure to visit the Register site. That’s a “vote” that actually counts.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/print.html
Andrew is a fine fellow and has gone way out on a limb any number of times. Let’s make sure he generates lots of hits!