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)
A very disappointing inquiry. Where were the cutting questions? Why let them waffle without giving answers?
Thanks Bish and everyone for the commentary, not having access to the live feeds, this has been great.
Conclusions:
1. CRU were not producing replicable science.
2. CRU were employing methologies that were suspect.
3. CRU were surruptiously involved in undermining the peer review and and IPCC processes.
4. CRU are not correcting or retracting flawed scientific papers.
5. UEA set up whitewash inquiries.
Thanks for the live blogging, Your Grace!
It seems to me that at least some committee members must have read your report, the questions were pretty much to the point and showed they had a much better grasp of the material than the members of the previous committee, excepting Mr Stringer.
@ Phillip Bratby, (10.40):
I think they let the three waffle on so as to give them lengthy rope to hang themselves with.
But I might be a bit naive with that assessment.
There was one small detail I liked. Right at the beginning everyone being asked would they have done anything differently. That is a classic technique. Gives them a chance to come clean, and afterwards they cannot claim, "but we were going to do that anyway."
Whether it means anything I doubt it, but I like that tactic.
Mac:
6. It's OK for CRU to ignore the IPCC procedures agreed to by our Government.
And now you know the real purpose/benefit of BH's report on the reports... briefing the committee
Re Viv
Agreed, they asked better questions and didn't seem convinced by some of the answers. Guess we now wait and see if the committe makes a statement endorsing or 'underlining' the reviews, or not. Given it helps 'underline' the largest UK spending programme, I'd hope they don't just add another layer of whitewash. From some of the body language, the committee didn't seem too impressed when Acton or Russell tried to tell them what to think.
The evidence is in.
The most damning evidence was the changes that UEA have imposed on CRU.
More openess. More transparency. A promise of replicable science from CRU. CRU now shackled to the School of Environmental Sciences in order to change the unit's behaviour. More recruitment, specifically professional statisticians to validate CRU science.
@ Atomic Hairdryer (10.52);
Yes indeed - they did not seem that impressed, especially the Tory and LibDem members.
So let us hope that they can influence the Chancellor a bit in regard to the coming budget allocations, and cut back some of the greenie CAGW spendings.
Well, one can dream, no?
And of course I did not know that GWPF was a pejorative... I think that smearing rather than answering the question is poor form. It shows a certain desperation.
The word used about Briffa was "gravely" ill, I think. Quite why he needed emails at home if he was gravely ill escapes me....
Russell said he read all the emails, I thought he had said at some other time that he hadn't - or was that Oxburgh? His reasons given for why they chose not to hold enquiry in public were pathetic. Russell and the "quasi judicial procedure required before you can ask if someone deleted emails" was obviously a recent idea, I would say. He was distinctly uncomfortable, I thought, when asked about the non-investigation of the fraud accusation.
Acton's explanation on whether they were intended to look at the science is not what he said after Oxburgh, when he said his remarks had been misrepresented [or something like that.] Reasons given for not including Kelly were pathetic- "Oxburgh panel were strong minded and independent". He said he asked CRU about email deletions, they said no- so that's settled then.
Davis said he chose the papers with the RS , indicating "verbal discussion" with Rees in Feb. Then said "anticipated approval" of RS. If already discussed, why should he need to seek approval again?
Davis confusing about Steve McIntyre's list of papers - all Briffa ones, is that right? He said the 2 papers connected to the Keenan investigation had been looked at by Oxburgh who had found no problems [I thought he hadn't looked at the science either...]
Stringer made a good effort over the papers and also the deleted emails. The others were nothing like persistent enough. Miller looked as though he was friends with the witnesses, smiling gently at them.
"The science is robust and we are all whiter than white...."
@Philip Bratby "A very disappointing inquiry. Where were the cutting questions? Why let them waffle without giving answers?"
They had little control over them, asked a direct question they simply dissimulated, or answered another queston, but if there were ever three people who felt they were in the dock it's these three. Waffle, prepared answers to questions that weren't asked (Trevor Davies, who barely looked anyone in the eye). I don't know what the ScTech committee will make of it all. They did however force the issue on the ICO and the breaking of the IPCC rules, as well as Acton saying he'd asked Briffa and Jones about the allegations and they'd both denied them so he was satisfied. And the email from Davies to Rees was read out along with the answer, more or less proving that Davies had in some part or other perjured himself by saying the papers were selected wth the RS. There's lots there for the forensic mind to determine that the investigations into the the events surrounding the leaked emails haven't been properly investigated by the UEA as promised. It's just a matter of whether the new Chair has the courage to say it, or whether the committee will shrug it's shoulders and say this sort of cover-up goes on all the time why risk our political careers.
Pity no-one picked Davies up on the investigation into Wang which consisted of the committee asking him were the data on the stations was and him telling them he didn't have them but his friend did, but unfortunately had lost them. After such a rigorous investigation he was, naturallly, exonerated.
Is there an accessible replay anywhere? I was unavoidably called away during the live session and missed it all.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6785
Latimer: Just play this from the beginning and you get the whole thing.
I managed to see some of it. Initial impression was that all three came across as a team. I had expected Muir Russel to be somewhat distanced from the UEA in his position of independent. Had they all met beforehand to discuss or prepared separately on expected questions? The body language suggested the former to me.
If you want to see how the Guardain has covered this go to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/27/hacked-uea-emails-cru
Bland is a good word to describe it , killing interest by making it very dull is another.
Russell was well paid to take the flack, Oxburgh is the weak link as he left Acton hung out to dry on the Reviewing the Science terms of ref.
The early arrival of Geese in the Highlands and Islands has created a surplus of lambs for fattening, there will not be enough grass for both this winter so the lambs are up for sale at knockdown prices. So the geese give us another cold winter, lower sheep prices and another nail in the coffin of AGW.
Well that Guardian report seems to be from another world, Carrington thought the session was "torpid", maybe because he found it hard to follow?
This stuck out though:
"The MPs, including the climate sceptic Graham Stringer, were unaggressive and seemed to be going through the motions."
Has Graham Stringer come out as a climate sceptic? Seems a bit of a presumption to me.
geronimo:
"They had little control over them, asked a direct question they simply dissimulated, or answered another queston". They could have interrupted the waffle and repeated the question, asking for a simple yes or no question.
This issue of Briffa taking the emails home has not been fully explored. When did he take them home (before or after the publication)? What did he take home (was it FOIA.txt)? If it was FOIA.txt, where did it come from? And finally, what was his purpose for taking it home?
Russel saying he would do the same again is par for the course. He used the same line of defence to the Scottish Parliament Audit Committee over the Holyrood Building but they didn,yswallow it.
Are they hiding something under Briffa's illness?