Bishop Hill Lawson lays down the law
Jan 28, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Russell Nigel Lawson has written to Sir Muir Russell, setting out his views on the Climategate review that Russell is to head (H/T Anthony Watts). There is much to admire here, and one can hear Lawson's years of experience in the points he makes. Most importantly though is how he closes the letter:
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.
This will put huge pressure on Sir Muir, who has spoken in the past of the importance he attaches to carrying the confidence of the sceptic community. Readers may remember the poll conducted here, which suggested strongly that sceptics were divided as to his reliability between those who thought he couldn't be trusted and those who didn't know. With probably the most prominent sceptic in the UK now asking that he hold the hearings in public, it will surely be hard for him to resist.
Reader Comments (8)
What do you think? Should we all write to Sir Humphrey (sorry, Muir)?
"one can hear Lawson's years of experience in the points he makes"
Years of experiences in what? Being a politician?
Well, he has run the UK Treasury. I took his advice on the need for legal assistance as being based on experience in such inquiries.
All Lawson's writings on climate change and the associated issues have been very well founded in logic and common sense. He's also very well connected politically so I suspect what he says will carry far more weight than the words themselves would suggest. He's a good guy to have onside.
Putting myself in Sir Muir and the VC's shoes, I think I'd start out by wanting there to be no public scandal tainting the CRU and the UEA and fueling doubts about the establishment view on AGW. It would be tempting to assume it would all blow over in the papers and the results could be announced quietly and when there were other items in the news. Possibly Jones could be ticked off for the way he ran the unit and allowing technical breaches of the FOIA, but a few things could be glossed over. No doubt there would be a few malcontents, but there are always unreasonable people.
I wouldn't start by wanting it probed to the very depths and dirty linen washed in public. I certainly wouldn't want to be seen as one of the forces recklessly destroying belief in AGW which is the establishment consensus.
The scope for arranging things would depend on the level of prurient popular interest dying down and I certainly wouldn't wish to be popularly exposed as covering things up, which would be fatal for the UAE and CRU anyway.
Lawson's advice is perfectly sound for someone investigating this honestly and helps to keep the light on it. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant.
I agree with completely, COSMIC, and I suspect that is all exactly the reason why Lawson acted.
We shall see what happens. Hopefully, the sun will shine through.
Muir Russell was either the civil servant responsible for no minister knowing the Scottish Parliament's budget was out of control or willing to sheid them all. His subsequent career success is more compatible with the latter.
thanks for the nice sharing