Bishop Hill Metcalfe on Acton's eleven
Oct 27, 2010 Climate: Parliament Stephen Metcalfe noted that Oxburgh had told the panel that the papers examined came via the university.
Acton said that they were in the UEA evidence to the old committee, and said that it would be "odd" to draw Oxburgh's attention away from this list, which he said were "bang on the issues". Obviously, we know that this is not true. Acton went on to say that it is impossible for a university to steer two independent (independent!) inquries in this way. Says he wanted to know the truth. Acton says Davies consulted on the list, which was a starting point. Davies says he was responsible for consulting with the Royal Society and the papers were selected to address the criticism of CRU at the time.
Metcalfe asked when the Royal Society were contacted and in particular whether it was before or after the papers were sent out to the panel. Davies said he and Liss spoke to Rees "some time at the end of February or beginning of March". Says list was sent to RS for approval on 4 March and they responded 12 March. Says origin of list was disclosed on UEA website 22 March. There is one very interesting bit where Metcalfe asks if Jones was involved in choosing the list. The reply is "No, not for the Oxburgh panel". It is possible, or even likely, therefore, that he was involved in choosing the nearly identical list submitted to Parliament, and on which the Oxburgh list was based. Davies repeats this form of words immediately afterwards, when he says Jones was told "which papers would be sent in...recommended to the Oxburgh panel".
Metcalfe asks if the selection process was open. Davies rather bizarrely says there was an open and transparent process with the Royal Society. He says anyone could suggest papers, although it is not clear how this was supposed to be done, as there were no contact details given for the panel and no invitation to submit such papers was issued.
At the end of Metcalfe's exchange, he has failed to get an answer from the panel as to whether the papers were sent to the panel before approval of the list was obtained from the Royal Society.
Reader Comments (3)
Precedent is not an issue with Post-Normal Science. Cause and effect is soo yesterday.
Given that the effect of rising CO2 levels occurred 800 years after the cause of rising temperatures, dates, times and causalities simply confuse the issue!
FGS, even the rich tenses of the French fall short of the chronological inexactitudes and logical absurdities that we heard passed off as reasoned arguments spewing from the minds, and mouths, of our intellectual superiors.
If our new government is serious about reform and national betterment then it is faced with an uncomfortable choice, and this goes for its political opponents as well.
We are being asked to tighten our belts for the greater good. It won't be pleasant but, if well thought out and reasoned, it will be accepted as necessary.
What we won't accept, as our energy costs escalate, while our manufacturing moves away and our children are force-fed educated guilt is that these ba***rds told you lies and you believed them notwithstanding the evidence that you chose not to listen to.9
Totally agree RoyFOMR
Also interesting are the comments by India that they expect Coal to produce over 50% of their energy until at least 2032,
The certainty that the next TEA BAG president of the USA wil be a Sceptic and the fact that you have to be educationally sub sub sub normal (OK really dumb) to believe that the Chinese will cut back on CO2 emissions.
All this leaves you totally gobsmacked about the current UK energy policy.
Acton's behaviour simply reinforces my view that the University of East Anglia is crappy little university occupied by mental pymies.