Bishop Hill Inquiries liveblog
Oct 27, 2010 Climate: Parliament 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.
Reader Comments (124)
Feed from Parliament TV just kicked in
It's appearing live at parliament
Got it on the Beeb - unctuous is the right description for that man!
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
He's not good at answering a simple, direct question is he?
Let a barrister at them... a Barrister would be chomping on the bit to spear these guys, just for the fun.
I haven't heard a direct answer to any question yet.
So who picked the papers???????????????????????
Ask the bloody question!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
@ Philip Bratby (9.23):
They must have at least a Ph,D, in waffling studies ...
So UEA did choose the 11 papers after all, but not a direct answer until the supplementary question to Davies.
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?
Ask the question did Prof Jones pick the the original list of papers submitted to the S&TC???????
Muir Russel said they read all the e-mails .... now why do i find that inconceivable ...
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
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.
Someone shut Muir up !!!!!
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
I notice a meme here of the nasty old unmoderated "blogger" world nipping at their heels
100% waffle from Russell - wasting time.
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
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.
Is Muir being paid by the word, he must be worth a fortune if he is. But no content !!!
Did he just say the interviews were recorded? If so, not seen them or transcripts
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"...
Who is that behind Acton feeding him papers?
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 ...
So CRU staff weren't actually interviewed, they were involved with the review panel members in establishing the ground rules of the investigation.
"I'm a historian"... "not me guv"... slimy git...
Stringer gently inserting the knife
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
Davies... climate science is different!!!
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.
Bish mentioned by Stringer!!!!
CRU SCIENCE IS NOT, AND WAS NOT REPLICABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 !!!!
Stringer going after the choice of papers ...
Davies twisting in the wind ...
Oh, apparently called computer models runs "experiments" is standard. Still, maybe they should stop doing that since that way confidence bias lies
Davies has no answer.
An An An An an stutter stutter. LOL
More waffle.. 'most criticised' papers somehow excluded Keenan's complaint
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 ...
"Montford has acknowledge he is non-partisan author" - what does that mean? How does that detract from the question? Mis-direction
Davies waffling at length - that's three serial wafflers wasting time.
The whitewash is unravelling.
The had a starting list of papers and made a selection of papers on that basis.
Stringer is singularly unimpressed by the dodging and diving! It's written all over his face.
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.
"That is quite a tricky area"... deleted emails...
As Stringer said, Davies must have thought through that answer to the papers SteveMc mentioned - look forward to SteveMcs response
More Muir Waffle, admitting no investigation of email deletion.