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[Note: The original picture of the parliament build has been replaced by this excellent cartoon by Josh via his email invitation]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.
or dealing with the kind of vexatious and time-wasting ‘dirty tricks’ that now seem to be part of the ‘scientific processs’. (Example: submitting an FOI request designed to be rejected).
I’ve processed FOI requests in New Zealand, but I imagine the law is basically similar.
There is effectively no work in processing one “designed to be rejected”. If they do not meet the criteria, then they get a polite letter saying so, and the matter rests. This has never been the situation here, as the MPs found clearly in their report.
Accepting an FOI request can be a lot of work, but usually isn’t if the material is well organised/filed. Any large request (100+ pages or more than an hour’s work) can be charged for, and is usually processed by someone fairly junior.
There is an enormous amount of work in rejecting a FOI request that actually meets the requirements. Large amounts of time need to be spent searching for loopholes or obscure criteria for rejection, and usually that involves lawyers – so costs in money as well as time.
Basically, the whole idea that FOI requests are vexatious is a fiction. They are only vexatious if your intention is to not release any material. If you are open to them then you give the work to a junior member of staff and charge heftily for the privilege.
People who are not open to releasing their material find FOI requests vexatious because they object to them on principle. Not because of the work involved. A good test would be to ask Phil Jones what sort of FOI request he would not consider “vexatious”. I bet he cannot describe such a thing.
Greenhouse gas warming. Must be a heap of those things, greenhouse gasses, in my auto here in Phoenix, AZ in summer.
Mooloo…
You have it spot on!
That is why some of us have our ‘tidy-whities’ in a bind. It is a “creep factor” that will continue for some time.
Yes, it was clearly not a whitewash… much more of a ‘dirty blond’ wash or a ‘manila wash’…
Graham Stringer is a Labour MP. I don’t remember his voice being raised in protest when his boss, Gordon Brown, very publicly called climate sceptics a bunch of anti-science flat earthers earlier this year. Yes, Stringer was one of the back-benchers calling for Brown’s resignation but I think it’s quite possible his action was out of a sense of political survival rather than what was best for the UK.
However, since he has now come out of the climate closet and is speaking up for common sense against the Con/Lib coalition (who are even bigger warmists) that kicked Labour into the cold, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt – for now.
I’ve just done a little bit of research and discovered Graham Stringer voted against the Climate Bill. He did put his money where his mouth is. I think he just earned the benefit of my doubt.
Phil Clarke,
are you sure Iddon and Turner are on Science & Technology? I don’t believe the order has been published yet, but the only Dr. on Science & Technology I caught on the unofficial list was/is Blackman-Woods (Social Science). I would be very surprised if Iddon and Turner are on the committee as neither is an MP (after the last election). Iddon and Turner used to be on the committee but are not on the committee currently. And yes, Stringer is a BSc (hon) not a PhD.
Just as any internet post criticizing another person’s grammar will contain a grammar error, I am certain that this post criticizing you for using the old S&T select committee roster to criticize Orlowski for poor research also contains an example of something I have overlooked or just missed.
Perhaps a good analogy here would be a public enquiry into the activities inside Auschwitz from 1941-1945.
The guards are the only people questioned and the investigating panel is made up mostly of former members of the SS.
Obviously, you would expect and get a whitewash.
This analogy is certain to upset somebody, but can anyone come up with a better one?
Perhaps we should keep a running list as more and more come out of the woodwork.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
Mr Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)(Chair)
“sleight of hand”
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/07/harrabin-on-ueas-sleight-of-hand-phil-willis/
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)
Mr Tim Boswell (Conservative, Daventry)
Mr Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg & Goole)
Mrs Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon)
Dr Brian Iddon (Labour, Bolton South East)
Mr Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)
Dr Doug Naysmith (Labour, Bristol North West)
Dr Bob Spink (Independent, Castle Point)
Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)
Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)
“The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/
Dr Desmond Turner (Labour, Brighton Kemptown)
Mr Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)
The Oxburgh Report
Chair: Prof Ron Oxburgh FRS (Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool)
Prof Huw Davies, ETH Zürich
Prof Kerry Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof Lisa Graumlich, University of Arizona.
Prof David Hand FBA, Imperial College, London.
Prof Herbert Huppert FRS, University of Cambridge
Prof Michael Kelly FRS, University of Cambridge
“That is turning centuries of science on its head.”
http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/22/kellys-comments/
Muir Russell
Sir Muir Russell KCB FRSE
Professor Geoffrey Boulton OBE, FRS, FRSE
Professor Peter Clarke, F.InstP, C.Phys, F.IET, C.Eng
David Eyton M.A. M.IoM3 C.Eng.
Professor Jim Norton FIET FBCS FIoD FRSA
I realise I am paraphrasing, but “all that is required for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.” I am very grateful that good men, such as the two Ms and Mr Stringer MP are putting their hands up in greater numbers and with some determination.
I remember seing a very enigmatic and spot-on accurate sprayed-on graffiti in Auckland (NZ) some thirty-plus years ago – “Slinky Pink sings in the Rat Race Choir” – to me, this graffiti just about sums up the enquiry memberships and their ‘findings’ to date, with the exception of some notable dissenters such as Mr Stringer, Phil Willis (now a member of the House of Lords) and Prof Michael Kelly.
Phil Clarke could profitably think about the immortal words of Sportin’ Life in Porgy and Bess in his illogical defence of the indefensable – ” It ain’t necessarily so!”
are you sure Iddon and Turner are on Science & Technology?
I am sure they were coauthors of the Committee report, and members at the same time as Stringer, who incidentally left the Committee on 11th May.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/science-technology-members/
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Graham_Stringer&mpc=Manchester%2C_Blackley&house=commons
He was actually absent for the Climate Change Bill 3rd reading, the Bill was passed overwhelmingly
the bill was passed with an overwhelming majority – 463 votes for, and just three against.
But who were the three who refused to fall into line with both their party hierarchy and the unerring demands of climate change science.
Three Conservative MPs voted against the bill: Christopher Chope MP for Christchurch, Peter Lilley MP for Hitchin and Harpenden, and Andrew Tyrie MP for Chichester.
http://blog.businessgreen.com/2008/11/businessgreenco-2.html
Thanks for the offer Smokey, however I’ll carry on expressing my own views, not your version of same.
Doug in Dunedin,
If I was living in NZ I would be buying or making deals to control some of the millions of acres of scrub-land ( tea-tree etc. ) that you have in your country, and can be got for cents per acre, referenced in the article ‘ Amazongate’ here on WUWT you will find that the WWF, etc., have got financing from the’ World Bank’ to the tune of $80,000,000 to “arrange” the ownership and or custodian of large areas of the Amazon forest, which, will bring them an estimated $60,000,000,000 ( yep that’s billions ) in yearly revenue on the carbon credit market. (for just being there first )
ATTENTION New Zealand Scrub farmers !!!! Double attention ‘Tasman Pulp and Paper Ltd’ (millions of acres, got to be the best buy on the NZ stock exchange ) !!
Farmers;
that back 20 that is no good for nothing can now bring you a government ‘climate credit’ that is worth more than the whole farm, who needs to milk the cows anymore ? just let the land go back to bush and transfer to one of those ‘Bay of Islands’ paradises and collect you hard earned millions.
(sarc off )
Phil Clarke:
“Thanks for the offer Smokey, however I’ll carry on expressing my own views, not your version of same.”
It wasn’t an ‘offer,’ it was a question.
So here is my question again, for the third time:
“If you accept what Kelly wrote, then you can see that these committees are simply a series of whitewashes that condone and excuse pseudo-science. Until an opposing point of view is allowed, they are a sham. Wouldn’t you agree?”
Please explain why you think it is OK to bar any opposing points of view.
Phil Clarke says:
July 10, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Stringer is of course spot on in characterising the report as not a whitewash, it is a thorough and extraordinarily well-evidenced exoneration of the CRU on all consequential charges. But the ‘Register’ (A UK IT Gossip site) article does have problems ….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.
Ooops! Orlowski has not done his homework. Dr Brian Iddon is a distinguished organic chemist and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Des Turner holds a Doctorate in Biochem.
And I’m not sure that Stringer actually has a PhD, Wiki only lists his BSc (gained 39 years ago) and the report always has him as plain ‘Graham Stringer’, whereas all the other Doctors are shown as such.
However I’m sure the rest of the piece has been better-researched …
____________________________________________________________________
.Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications…..
I think you have it wrong and the Register has it right. If there were any others in Parliament who had “scientific qualifications” they would be howling BLOODY MURDER because of how CRU has bastardized science. The fact they only Stringer is howling means everyone else is a politician, not a scientist no matter where they went to school or what their course work.
A piece of paper with words written on it does not a scientist make. The crew at CRU certainly has show that is true, they are politicians one and all.
Doug in Dunedin says:
July 10, 2010 at 1:45 pm
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….
______________________
KenB says:
July 10, 2010 at 5:48 pm
DOUG
I totally agree with your summation, it will smoulder and eventually ignite into a wite hot issue. Did they ever think that the little people of society (who vote these guys in) won’t have the capacity to think about the issue….
___________________________________________________________
The people behind this scam really do not care. They are not nationalists but internationalists who owe loyalty to no one but themselves, they are above the laws of a mere nation. A must read is:
UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance http://www.iahf.com/world/un-refm.html
The goal is to destroy western civilization and soften her up for a takeover. The political disruption caused when the man in the street finally wakes up is what is wanted. As the people of a nation one by one rebel against the increasing stranglehold of the green monster, UN “peace keeping forces” will be called in to “restore peace”
The door of foreign soldiers to occupy the USA during a “domestic civil emergency” has already been opened in the USA and Canada.
“..In a political move that received little if any attention by the American news media, the United States and Canada entered into a military agreement on February 14, 2008, allowing the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency, even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis,…” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8551
Maurice Strong was the point man in this power grab. He is a Canadian. At one point he was going to run for political office in Canada but backed out. Why? because he has more power in the UN and as a string puller than he would as a politician and he answers to no one.
Take a quick look at history. Paul Warburg, a German came to the USA, wrote the Federal Reserve Act 0f 1913 and shepherded it through the US Congress by sleight of hand. His brother Max financed the Bolshevik Revolution. The bankers have made a killing financing the war machine on both sides ever since, national loyalty, what loyalty?
So where is Maurice Strong now? In China of course, working for a construction and engineering firm and as Advisor to the Chinese government. According to http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover012205.htm
Maurice Strong is an unabashed advocate for China as the next world power and he is making darn sure he is in position to take advantage of it.
Strong was Senior Advisor to the World Bank, Trustee to the Rockefeller Foundation and the member of the of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance
Maurice Strong was a senior advisor to United Nations’ Secretary General Kofi Annan. Strong directs the U.N.’s Business Council on Sustainable Development -Agenda 21. Strong is involved in the U.N. Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which he uses to promotes Gaia, the Earth God. Strong is the director of The Temple of Understanding in New York used to encourage Americans to replace Christianity with the worship of “mother earth.”
http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/DossierStrong.html
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalGovernance.htm
http://isgp.eu/organisations/introduction/PEHI_Maurice_F_Strong_bio.htm
And here is the Guardian’s interview with Strong: (remember he likes to be the power behind the throne so he has no desire to be on the political hot seat. Strong is too smart for that. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/23/maurice-strong-reacts-to-glenn-beck
And here is the rebuttal: http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=1568
A questionable source: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/2605maurice_strong.html Says:
“Strong was a co-founder with Prince Philip of the secretive 1001 Club, the main “piggybank” of the green-genocidalist World Wildlife Fund (WWF)…
It is therefore not surprising that another hat that Maurice Strong has worn is that of Treasurer, now Fellow, of Lindesfarne, New York, whose founder, William Thompson, conceived it as a medieval village into which the remnants of humanity might be herded as a feudalist “concentration camp,” once genocidal eco-facist policies of the sort advocated by Maurice Strong had taken hold. And, for good measure, Strong is the president of the World Economic Forum, the Davos, Switzerland annual summit of the world’s private bankers’, which will be keynoted this year by Vice President Al Gore….”
Oh and we can not leave William Connolley out. Here is his Wiki version of reality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
Phil Clarke says:
July 10, 2010 at 6:19 pm
….It will never ‘end’ in some quarters, however the distinction between propaganda and science grows starker by the day.
____________________________________________________
Oh I quite agree. I think people are starting to wake up and see the politicians, media and the CRU scientists are engaged in propaganda not science. The internet has done wonders in bollixing up the attempts at damage control and white wash.
I do entertainment at parties on the weekends and I have seen a major change in the public attitude towards “Global Warming” since last year. The mess with the bank bailouts and the “town hall meetings” on Obamacare did not sit well with many people. It sensitized them to political deceit. Even most diehard greens could see the moneymaking scheme in the leaked Denmark Papers.
I am sure they were coauthors of the Committee report, and members at the same time as Stringer, who incidentally left the Committee on 11th May.
Urm, all MPs left every select committee about then, something to do with the new PM and new Parliament and all that. Stringer was elected to the S&T committee (new procedure this parliament is to elect committee members by party caucus, we’ll see how well that works) and was a member of it when Orlanski wrote the piece while Iddon and Turner obviously are not currently members of the committee.
I didn’t intend an attack that was to be defended and refuted, it doesn’t undercut your main point and is a minor side issue. I made an observation of the amusing incidence of your charging “Orlowski has not done his homework” based on evidence no longer valid after the 2010 general elections. All your mistake demonstrates is a lack of ready familiarity with the arcane workings of the UK Parliament and the politics of the UK, hardly a failing that a US-based blog on climate-change can criticize a poster for. It is amusing, but irrelevant to the argument.
Overheard in a Pub,
“The ‘Greatest Sin’ falls upon the souls of those who allow, permit, condone, foster, acquiesce, and vote for the worthless blighters who sit in Parliament and who do nothing to truly represent their constituents.”
or maybe she said:
“The ‘Greatest Sin’ falls upon the souls of those who allow, permit, condone, foster, acquiesce, and vote for the worthless blighters who sit in Parliament and who do nothing to better represent their constituents.”
anyhow, after that outburst, she said,
“We’re going to pay the piper now, and in the next life, for the shoddy way these weasels have managed the country for us. Guess we should’a kept a better eye on the lot of ’em.”
Bet there’s a lot of Yanks in Bars, saying the same thing.
What Reason tells me is that I fear greatly for a place where there are so many blind and evasive Phil Clarkes around, as well as so many name-callers who rely on the “info” of these Phil Clarkes, as well as so many blind “authorities” Sir This-and-That, who say they will examine the science then welsh on it, as well as so many alarmist scientists degrading Scientific Method, flouting FOIA, bullying the top science mags into what is said and what is not said, and rigging the “independent reviews” with their own boys.
UK Sceptic says: July 11, 2010 at 1:48 am
UK Sceptic, Graham Stringer was the only member of the Parliamentary panel of inquiry to ask any sensible and searching questions but was voted down at the end.
Gail Combs says: July 11, 2010 at 8:08 am
___________________________________________________________
The people behind this scam really do not care. They are not nationalists but internationalists who owe loyalty to no one but themselves, they are above the laws of a mere nation.
Gail, I am sure you are right when you say that the people behind the scam do not care a jot about national interests.
The debacle over the sub prime affair in the US, UK and Europe and the way that it has been handled (you know banks too big to be allowed to fail) is an example where it has been demonstrated that even the US treasury and the UK Bank of England have been used to prop these ‘people’ up. It was a Ponzi scheme on a massive scale – and they got away with it. Well – this little baby has even bigger potential as far as I can see.
I do not dare to think about UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance but I have read about Maurice Strong’s background and of course that little toad William Conolley who seems to spend his time fooling around in Wikipedia on anything remotely connected with climate. It is mind boggling and certainly provides a good reason why everything is covert and never reaches the MSM. The scientists at CRU and elsewhere seem to me to be pawns in the bigger game.
Doug
@ur momisugly phil clarke, i think you’ll find its common in the civil service and other public funded areas to “promote” someone out of the way. Its takes the individual out of the spot-light. (for a while).
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says: July 11, 2010 at 8:08 am
“The door of foreign soldiers to occupy the USA during a “domestic civil
emergency” has already been opened in the USA and Canada.”
That was why King Charles I lost his head: not for waging war on his own
people, but for trying to raise a foreign army (in Ireland).
Hi Lucy,
as well as so many name-callers who rely on the “info” of these Phil Clarkes
Hmmm, so can we rely on the ‘info’ at your site? Cataloging all the factual errors would take too long but here are a few that you could fix quickly …
“Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC, said, “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen”. No he did not.
Beck’s CO2 measurements are balony and the relevant lifetime of CO2 is not 2-12 years, see Mr Eschenberg.
If you’re going to direct your readers to Monckton’s APS piece, you should mention the errors in it.
Indeed The Viscount gets over 40 mentions, though Professor Abraham’s recent critique that the papers Monckton cites never actually support his arguement, is strangely absent.
My assumption is that you are interested in presenting a balanced picture.
regards,
PC.
@Phil Clarke: “Ooops! Orlowski has not done his homework. Dr Brian Iddon is a distinguished organic chemist and a Fellow of the Royal Society.”
Brian Iddon is not an even MP – he retired in April.
As you might say — Ooops!
Warming activists are quick to play the man not the ball (“The Register – a gossip site”…”And I’m not sure that Stringer actually has a PhD”) but very careless with the facts themselves.
No wonder they have lost so much credibility recently – the public doesn’t believe them any more.