Metcalfe on Acton's eleven
Oct 27, 2010
Bishop Hill in 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.

Article originally appeared on (http://www.bishop-hill.net/).
See website for complete article licensing information.