I've now had a chance to cast an eye over Sir Edward Acton's contribution to the Parliamentary Select Committee's inquiry into CRU. Like many commenters, I'm not impressed.
It's every man for himself
The contribution is billed as as being submitted by Sir Edward, "with additional comment provided, where indicated, by the University's Climatic Research Unit". It's interesting to note, therefore, that the controversial sections are attributed to the CRU rather than to Sir Edward, so there's a strong hint that the UEA boss is not confident enough of what Jones et al are saying to want to put his name against it. Joint and several liability is a dangerous thing when giving evidence to one's political masters, it seems.
Refuting illusory allegations
When we look at the CRU sections we see firstly that they are denying strongly that they have fabricated primary data. That they haven't done so is unsurprising, because as far as I am aware nobody has ever accused them of such a thing. This looks rather like the politician's trick of refuting an allegation that hasn't been made.
Still no code
There is a lengthy section dealing with allegations that CRU has exaggerated global warming by manipulation or selection of data. Most of this is verbiage, which doesn't address the primary issues of the non-availability of the CRUTEM code and the question of how individual stations are chosen. Claims that the adjustments are explained in published papers and unpublished technical reports can be tested in seconds, and a brief perusal suggests that anyone who reads the cited documents will be none the wiser as to how the adjustments actually work in practice. We need the code not more empty words.
Different code doesn't help
There is an interesting point at section 3.4.8 in which it is claimed that "the different computer program used to produce the CRUTEM3 dataset has now been released by [the Met Office] with the support of CRU". This rather curious form of words - a "different" computer program - presumably refers to the code in which John Graham-Cumming has just found an error. As has been noted previously, this is not the adjustment code that everyone wants to see and is not even the actual code used by the Met Office to create the HADCRUT global temperature series. Again, this looks like smoke and mirrors rather than an attempt to get to the truth.
Hiding the decline
When it comes to "hiding the decline", we start to see why Sir Edward wouldn't want to put his name to the CRU's explanation. There is another repetition of the risible claim that this was something to do with using reliable temperature data rather than unreliable proxy figures. Everyone knows that the decline was hidden so that the proxy reconstructions of the medieval warm period looked more reliable than they really are. We know the context and it makes it worse. Really, these people just have to stop it.
It's interesting to see this in the UEA submission though, because of course we now know that there will be nobody giving evidence to the panel who can challenge this sort of misleading story. As many have noted, it's almost as if Phil Willis and his colleagues on the committee set out to avoid hearing the truth.
FoI and the station data
The FoI sections are particularly interesting, with Jones et al repeating their claims that the CRU data was subject to "formal non-publication agreements", despite the fact they appear to have been able to distribute the data to sympathetic researchers. One for the select committee to probe there.
They also harp on about the "overwhelming deluge" of FoI requests in summer 2009. Given that these were all essentially for the same information, it seems pretty clear that this is an excuse, and a feeble one at that. It has been pointed out that it should have taken no more than an hour to find the four agreements that were actually held by CRU and no more than another hour to send identical replies to each of the requesters. This is a simple issue for lay people to understand and the select committee should be able to demolish Sir Edward and Professor Jones next week. If they want to.
FoI and Briffa's data
CRU are saying that they directed requests for Briffa's tree ring data to the appropriate institutions. This again looks like an attempt to mislead, because the request was for the data as used by Briffa, not for something held elsewhere that may or may not have been the same. In the Hockey Stick Illusion, I describe several instances where the data used by Mann in his Hockey Stick study was not the same as the data held in the archives, and these differences were often of critical importance. If you want to replicate a study you need the original data as used.
It's also worth noting that if the data were embargoed as CRU is claiming, it is surprising that Briffa should choose to publish them in journals that required him to make the data available on request.
FoI and the ICO
CRU says that the ICO has clarified that no breach of the law at CRU has been established. This seems to contradict the ICO's earlier statements that there had been. I wonder if we are merely dealing with a piece of semantics here - i.e. that the ICO believes a breach to have taken place but that since no trial has taken place CRU scientists are in the clear.
There's also a neat repetition of the "emails were private" canard. Remember, this was correspondence relating to the IPCC review process, which was meant to be open. Breaking the rules and doing the review in secret doesn't make the correspondence "private". Frankly the select committee should be hauling the CRU witnesses over the coals for this kind of thing.
And there we have it...
All in all, it's not a pretty sight and it will be fascinating to see whether anyone on the Select Committee is up to challenging this sort of nonsense. There is unfortunately only half an hour for questioning, and even this is split between Acton and Jones. Instead of grilling Acton and Watson, precious time will be wasted on giving a platform to the already ubiquitous AGW activists-cum-cheerleaders, Julia Slingo and Bob Watson. Again, one comes away with a strong impression of a charade being performed for the benefit of the cameras rather than an attempt to hold civil servants to account.