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)
Russell inquiry not looking for criminal activities.
Muir Russell has just basically admitted his inquiry was useless... re deleted emails.
If the AR4 emails still exist - as Russel just confirmed - shouldn't an FOI for them be sent to CRU? Phil Jones obviously wanted rid of them, let's find out why.
So the FOI question - naaah, forget it, they'd ahve had to be 'judicial', says Muir Russel.
Stringer is having none of that - and Muir Russell says he didn't ask Phil Jones about it because that would have been like a criminal proceedings, whereas they'd only looked at 'The Science' ...
Stringer is tormenting Muir about those deleted e-mails ...
Muir Russell... everyone else was dealing with the email deletion... "not us guv"
I missed the context about why Russell said
"If we ducked or avoided, I plead guilty to that"
So because Acton 'asked' Jones et al about deleting e-mails, and they said it didn't happen, it is all fine - go away ...
Stringer is twisting the knife.
No questions asked about Biffa taking emails home, but Acton has given biffa a getout, he was ill.
So the e-mails are now available and can be read, according to Acton and Muir ... all 3000 pages ... in answer on Stringer's question.
So where can we access them?
Jones is innocent because he said so.
Acton says the emails David Holland requested are available. Has Holland's FOI request been satisfied now then!?
The bare faced lie - the supposed non-deletion of emails - the supposed question and non-questioning of deletion - how uncomfortable they look.
"I take the matter very seriously. I wrote to all members of staff"... Acton on improving FOI processes... Well that sorted it then... it is like a Whitehall parody...
Gawd - how many times can Muir Russell use 'peer review' in one sentence?
Briffa critically ill but still took work home, or was it very ill?
Viv. Russells sentences are infinitely long, so as many as you want.
Russell is also not a scientist! this is funny... who says democracy is humourless
Re Viv
They seemed to be implying that all the relevant emails were leaked, even though Russell's cursory 'forensic' look said it's only 0.2%. Briffa's improvised offsite backup is potentially FOI'able, if the police haven't taken that into custody as well.
Is Acton requesting the tone for the S&TC final report?....
"I want my university to be whiter than white"
Mosley about confidentiality of peer review - I have to say, these STSC members seem to have been exceedingly well briefed!
(Ahem, they at least read your report, Your Grace!)
Montford quoted again, Muir waffle, did not look but nothing to see anyway trust me (is that logical).
Pure waffle from Russell about why he didn't get interested in the "squeaky clean" email, he just thinks it isn't prima facie worth looking at, so now we know the level of his judgment for a prima facie case
When neither acton or Muir Russell can get the proper whitewash back - ask Davies, he's got the latest, latex-based one ...
Secret discussions on the admissability of papers to journals.
Oooh.. is this Keenan's charge??
Yes !!!! but they say move along
They are embarrassing...
Russell is talking about triangulation and graphs, but 5 mins. before he was not a scientist...
"The historian would like to know the full story around it" but I guess the historian doesn't do much to facilitate that desire when we are talking about a subject in the present. I am guessing that history may not be kind to Acton
JohnH - they've said nothing else but 'move along' since the start of this session ...
Jones stated he would consider retracting or correcting the 1990 paper. Why hasn't he done so????
Ran Crutem without China and the results were the same.
But if the same issues were affecting the temp records globally that would be the result anyway
Interesting definition of fraud from Russell. If you didn't realise it was a problem at the time, covering it up later is ok in his world. That didn't work too well for Nixon.
Holland made no submissions ???? Surely they were editited out.
I can't believe Davies just handed responsibility to Lord Oxburgh for having dealt with the Wang paper
Or was that the Guardian evening, must stop connecting 2 half memories
Massive red herring by Davies, saying new methods etc mean that allegations of 'fraud' is not something scientists can or need to answer, seeing how much is being published.
So Jones is as white as the driven snow ...
So the 1990 paper remains uncorrected, and will remain uncorrected. So future papers who cite the 1990 will also be flawed.
Red herrings coming thick and fast, now Muir Russell about 'keeping up to date' and ... awww ... using index cards ...!! to safeguard against 'fraud'.
How come the BBC coverage is ahead of the live coverage from parliament?
The end product justified the means.... re IPCC report.
What was the point of the inquiry then?
Russell really is a bluffer...
Biffa was let of the hook becuase Muir wanted to be Mr Nice Guy and not ask difficult questions.
Using new papers against the IPCC rules was OK according to Muir, 'The end justifies the means'.
The end justify the means - breaching IPCC guidelines is perfectly okay.
I thought journals used corrigenda to update or correct papers, which didn't happen for the China one?
I like the idea of some amorphous 'net beast that can auto-update dependent papers when corrigenda are issued though. Not entirely sure it'd work, but could keep google busy for a while.
Briffa shoe-horning the paper into the IPCC report was just getting known science in, in a slightly unorthodox way, but thats ok - no background to the history about the reason why he needed to do it /sarc
Soooo - according to Acton we should have 'confidence' in CRU because there were 'review after review after review' ... and they will employ more statisticians ...
Go away, peasants, and start believing again, ok!
Don't let Muir reply to the last question, we have a finite amount of life left.
Muir on Safe Places, what the hell does that mean.
Oohh - Acton at it again!
Because the STSC has asked them again, the congratulations of the 'government' to CRU and Jones are confirmed.
Really???
I like the way Acton thanked the committee for 'underscoring' the conclusions of the report(s). Presumably why he's been dragged back to face them again.
(still can't watch the dynamic CRU duo without thinking about Montgomery Burns and Smithers)
Acton - go back to your history books
Russell - a bluffer, perfect for their original intention for the "Independent" Review
Davies - dislikeable, shifty