Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Better...but enough? | Main | BBC to cover S&TC today »
Wednesday
Oct272010

Inquiries liveblog

10:38 And that's it.

10:35 Miller asks if the panel have anything else to add. Acton welcomes panel's involvement and government response.

10:35 Mosley asks what changes have been made at UEA. Acton says CRU drawn closer into ENV, to ensure no repeat of FOI problems. Encouraging closer involvement with statisticians. Davies says investing in data archiving.

10:34 Mosley asks if UEA was involved in the IAC report. Davies said not as a university, but individuals may have been.

10:32 Russell says Holland's evidence was taken into account.

10:29 Was there indirect evidence that Briffa had used his position inappropriately to include late papers? Russell says Mitchell says it was OK.

10:24 Metcalfe: Is it possible to correct papers though? Davies says clear refs in Jones 2008 to the original paper (odd wording). Davies says a correction can be issued. Says Jones thinking about it, decided that 2008 paper addressed the issue. Russell says he doesn't know about this. Says it can come up at conferences.

10:19 Who should be responsible for investigating allegation of fraud? Russell waffles. How do you ensure amendments are made? Davies says Albany exonerated Wang. Says Keenan has made same allegations made at Jones. Says Keenan did not numerical analysis. Says Jones had no access to the Wang info at the time (?) Keeps mentioning GWPF. Says results confirmed. This all needs checking!!

10:!6 Asking about Keenan's fraud allegation. Russell says this was discussed. Was the movement of the Chinese paper discussed? Says without China, little difference to results.

10:15 Miller asks about Jones comment ("forget this email when you reply").

10:14 Is discussion of papers common in peer review? Davies says yes, but without revealing details of data or results.

10:11 Did review look at the question of breach of peer review confidentiality? Russell - no. Says didn't ignore advice of Horton. Says different interpretation possible.

10:10 Nash asks if there was an adverse culture re peer review within CRU.

10:06 Pamela Nash asks about the 3 instances of peer review ubversion. Russell says these were the 3 solid examples. Footnote in my report saying not clear what allegation was (?). Russell referring to Horton's work on peer review.

10:05 Miller says that ICO has said suitable steps being taken at UEA to improve FOI procedures.

10:04 Acton says all the relevant emails are now available.

10:03 Stringer asks Acton how he feels about the question not being asked. Acton says he has asked Jones. Stringer asks if he was asked under caution. Asks about taking emails home. Acton says Briffa very ill at the time. Acton says therefore reasonable behaviour.

10:01 Stringer says had he decided not to ask the question last time he was in front of the committee. Russell says he told Boswell. Cites para 171?

9:57 Stringer asking about Jones email inciting deletion. Russell says review did not come to a conclusion on deletion of emails (???). Couldn't get involved in quasi judicial work. Didn't ask the question. Stringer surprised.

9:56 Davies says CRU has no case to answer on the science.

9:53 Stringer asking about lack of multiproxy papers. Davies says I am partisan. Refers to a list on McIntyre's site. Says this postdated Oxburgh. What list is this? Not disputing lack of multiproxy papers.

9:49 Stringer asks about my report and Davies emaiil to Royal Soc asking to use their name. Davies says papers sent on 10th, but asked Rees on 12th. Davies flannelling.

9:48 Davies sidelines it into discussion of "experiments". Davies says true that work couldn't be replicated, but says that with a few weeks work, it would be possible.

9:47 Stringer says science has to be reproducible. Acton agrees. So why weren't Kelly's comments in the report? Acton says panel was independent and he can't change it.

9:44 Stringer asks about Acton's comment that he was happy with Oxburgh report. Asking about Kelly's notes - CRU science not science as Kelly understood it. "Briffa couldn't reproduce his own work". Why weren't Kelly's comments in it?

9:43 Why weren't interviews done publicly. Russell says they wanted to reference everything because of the scientific nature of the thing.

9:40 Roger Williams asking about how much time was spent on the interviews. Russell saying it was not possible for everyone to attend all interviews. Russell says he wouldn't do things differently next time. This is pathetic stuff.

9:35 Russell says they read all the emails. Russell waffling. He is trying to use up time. Why is Miller not stopping this?

9:34 Davies says process was open and transparent with Royal Soc. Anyone could suggest papers (how!!!)

9:32 When were RS asked to assess list. Davies says discussed verbally with Rees end Feb. List sent to RS on 4th March, responded 12 March. Says allegations that they responded in 20 mins not true. Jones not involved in selection of papers for Oxburgh panel. This needs checking.

9:28 Metcalfe asks who chose the papers. Acton says they all appear in UEA evidence to S&TC. Says they are "bang on" the issues. Says can't control the inquiry. Davies said he was responsible for liaison with Oxburgh and Royal Society. Says Oxburgh sent other info including UEA submissions to other inquiries.

9:28 Acton says CRU science constantly being looked at.

9:27 Acton says word science is protean. Says happy with way Oxburgh did inquiry was fine.

9:26 Acton citing an NAS report?? Also EPA assessment. Says it's forensic. Says they conclude no problem with UEA emails.

9:25 Miller says panel told Oxburgh looking at science. Now saying this not so. What was the purpose of Oxburgh inquiry (to Acton). Acton says no changes made to terms. Says Oxburgh says CRU science was "scientifically justified".

9:23 Parliament coverage is live now

9:20 Nothing from either BBC or Parliament yet...

9:14 As far as I can tell there's a single panel of three witnesses - Russell, Acton and Davies. Beddington is up in front of the committee later on (10:45) but this appears to be about other matters rather than his role in the UEA inquiries.

9:13 OK, I think we're nearly ready to go. Live coverage should be available from Parliament itself, or from the BBC. The BBC is normally better as they tell you who's who.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (124)

Feed from Parliament TV just kicked in

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

It's appearing live at parliament

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Got it on the Beeb - unctuous is the right description for that man!

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

The embedded player isn't working for me, Bish.. it's working from this page instead: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167511.stm

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

He's not good at answering a simple, direct question is he?

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Let a barrister at them... a Barrister would be chomping on the bit to spear these guys, just for the fun.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

I haven't heard a direct answer to any question yet.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

So who picked the papers???????????????????????

Ask the bloody question!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Well now - both Acton and his Vice Chancellor acknowledge that the University 'choose' the papers, for the most honourable reasons :-) because tehy had been named in the submission for the March STSSC

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

@ Philip Bratby (9.23):

They must have at least a Ph,D, in waffling studies ...

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

So UEA did choose the 11 papers after all, but not a direct answer until the supplementary question to Davies.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnH

Why did the Russell report falsely claim "we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made"?

Did the Russell team not notice that the subject of the 'can you delete' email 1212063122.txt was "IPCC & FOI"?

Why did the Russell team suppress David Holland's submission which spelled out the details of his FOI request two days before that email was sent?

Why did the University not include David's FOI request 08-31 in its list of FOI requests?

Why did the Russell team not even ask Jones about deletion of emails?

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

Ask the question did Prof Jones pick the the original list of papers submitted to the S&TC???????

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Muir Russel said they read all the e-mails .... now why do i find that inconceivable ...

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

I like that "Any one was a liberty to make suggestions of papers" - and to be ignored - am I right II seem to remember SteveMc recommended some rather key papers and was ignored

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

Key word searches, a standard technique, of the emails such as "delete", "trick" and "hide" would have been more appropiate.

What we are witnessing is a classic whitewash in action.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Someone shut Muir up !!!!!

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnH

Well - 'people need now to challenge the science - climate science should move on ...'
Is that another straw in the wind about the Final days of CAGW

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

I notice a meme here of the nasty old unmoderated "blogger" world nipping at their heels

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

100% waffle from Russell - wasting time.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Didn't know how it would work to get all team members at the interview? Video conferencing or normal meeting planning would work for me

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

If every member of the panel read alll the emails, as asserted, then it is astonishing that only a few panel members were involved in the in the brief interviews of CRU members.

Whitewash, whitewash.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Is Muir being paid by the word, he must be worth a fortune if he is. But no content !!!

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnH

Did he just say the interviews were recorded? If so, not seen them or transcripts

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

You can see after the first three speakers how it is possible people think they can game the system.

80% waffle, 10% bullsh*t and 10% "facts"...

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Who is that behind Acton feeding him papers?

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Gah - Muir Russell is really talking from a great height down to the MPs. And he'll never use three words when ten sentences will do ...

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

So CRU staff weren't actually interviewed, they were involved with the review panel members in establishing the ground rules of the investigation.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

"I'm a historian"... "not me guv"... slimy git...

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Stringer gently inserting the knife

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

I cant wait for the transcript of what Acton just said about not using Kelly! I lost it after "I am a historian.." but it sounded like pure BS

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

Davies... climate science is different!!!

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

We're seeing another 'team' in action: Acton and Davies ...

Looks as if it needs the two of them to answer one simple question of mr Stringer MP.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

Bish mentioned by Stringer!!!!

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

CRU SCIENCE IS NOT, AND WAS NOT REPLICABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Stringer is pushing on Prof Kelly's notes, models are not experiments !! Why was not that published. Waffle answers by the Historian.

Montfort is being used !!!!

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnH

Stringer going after the choice of papers ...
Davies twisting in the wind ...

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

Oh, apparently called computer models runs "experiments" is standard. Still, maybe they should stop doing that since that way confidence bias lies

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

Davies has no answer.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

An An An An an stutter stutter. LOL

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnH

More waffle.. 'most criticised' papers somehow excluded Keenan's complaint

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Another mention of Your Grace by Stringer!

SO Davies says the Bish 'has acknowledged he was partisan' ... and now we have Steve McIntyre ... oooohhh you baaaad bloggers ...

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

"Montford has acknowledge he is non-partisan author" - what does that mean? How does that detract from the question? Mis-direction

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

Davies waffling at length - that's three serial wafflers wasting time.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

The whitewash is unravelling.

The had a starting list of papers and made a selection of papers on that basis.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Stringer is singularly unimpressed by the dodging and diving! It's written all over his face.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

CRU had 'no case to answer in regard to science', it has a case to answer in doing more to make data/papers 'more available - like other sciences ... and so says Davies ...

Nothing to see here, move on ...

Stringer doesn't think so.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

"That is quite a tricky area"... deleted emails...

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

As Stringer said, Davies must have thought through that answer to the papers SteveMc mentioned - look forward to SteveMcs response

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve2

More Muir Waffle, admitting no investigation of email deletion.

Oct 27, 2010 at 9:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohnH

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>