Bishop Hill The hearings - Lawson and Peiser
Mar 1, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament I'll start a new thread now
15:38 Naysmith, saying that scientists often keep data back until they are ready to publish. Lawson says it's not a question of data being immediately available - mentions Yamal. More important that we are open where policy matters are concerned.
15:36 Lawson discussing surface vs satellite records. Says further investigation required.
15:34 Stewart asks if NASA and NOAA records are wrong or misleading. Peiser returns to the process - is the data and code available. Asks if parliament want the public to trust the data.
15:33 Stewart says data is available from the archives. Peiser says they need the code.
15:29 Who's this? Not sure. Update: Ian Stewart asks if the data has been available. Peiser says they say "they will". Lawson says they say they've deleted some of the data. Everyone seems as confused as everyone else as to what is available and what is not.
15:27 Evan Harris asks if it's OK if they explained the Briffa truncation in the literature. Lawson seems not to follow the point entirely.
15:25 Stringer cites Mosher and Fuller. Yay! Was the problem with the trick that they didn't disclose what they had done? Lawson agrees.
15:24 Willis asks about Mike's Nature trick. Emphasises the word "hiding" not "trick". Well put! Ah, this is excellent, Lawson understands the Nature trick. Also mentions the lack of underlying data. Calls the hockey stick "fraudulent"(!) Thank goodness for Parliamentary privilege.
15:22 Lawson talks about hiding the decline.
15:21 Peiser says it makes no difference to the scientific debate, it's about process.
15:18 Boswell asks if the disclosure of emails etc was a coordinated attack on the scientists. Talks about quoting out of context. Peiser says disclosure gave sceptics a field day. Says non-sceptics became sceptic as a result. Says if we don't get to the bottom of it, it will get worse.
15:17 Evan Harris asks if it's a good idea for GWPF to disclose its funding. What a crock. This is not what the review is meant to be about.
15:17 Graham Stringer asks who funds Lawson and Peiser's organisation? Lawson says it's not in terms of reference but answers.
15:16 Boswell asks if intransigence of UEA scientists caused the problem. Lawson says yes. Peiser agrees. Peiser says we know data was shared with sympathetic scientists.
15:14 Lawson says scientists of integrity reveal their data and methods. Don't need FoI requests to force it out of them. Praised Institue of Physics submission and says UEA one is appalling. Says peer review is not keystone to science, says it is full and transparent disclosure.
15:12 Tim Boswell (Con) talks about overwhelming volume of FoI requests. This is misleading nonsense. Does Lawson know the facts? Yes, he does. Lawson says evasion was in response to a very small number of requests. The large volume of requests came later.
15:11 Willis says Lawson is "losing the argument" which is why he is criticising panel. Lawson says it will reduce authority of panel. Lawson says he has nothing against Russell.
15:07 Lawson asked if he has confidence in Russell Review. Says it's a pity they can't take evidence from certain others. Says terms of reference are OK but need extended. Openness and transparency are concerns. Concerned with membership of panel. Calls Boulton "committed climate alarmist" notes he is UEA alumnus. Calls it "a certain carelessness" on Russell's part.
15:06 Willis says purpose is to examine events and implications, not truth of AGW
15:05 OK we're off
15:04 I can see Peiser and Lawson and the committee appears to have assembled. Lots of milling about still.
15:03 OK I have visuals from parliamentlive. No sound yet.
15:00 Channel Four have just emailed to say they're only starting at 4pm.
14:57 I've just noticed that the BBC's website refers to the emails as "leaked". No more "illegally hacked" then? Channel Four says they were "hacked".
14:55 Five minutes to go. Do these things usually start on time?
14:32 While we're waiting, I might mention John Graham-Cumming's observation this morning that the Met Office checks their data manually while NOAA on the other side of the pond have built in software checks. JG-C wonders if this is why he finds errors in the Met Office code.
14:30 Half an hour to go and I'm just about set. Richard in the comments seems to think it's better to watch on the BBC player rather than on Parliamentlive. Channel Four's live stream is here.
Reader Comments (34)
If you're going to fart do it now before it goes live.
And our taxes paid for those bloody paintings...
Hmm There's some action going on the Parliament link now
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979
Sorry tapestries - even MORE expensive... :)
What it started with the events of Jume 09!? Here we go
For our American readers "...demonstrates at least a certain carelessness" by Lord Lawson is British Savaging at its parliamentary best.
What the hell is the funding of Lawson got to do with it? Time wasting?
Bias starting to show already:(
"How are you funded?"
Classic diversion. And what difference does it make?
So it appears to be a setup?
who sent the email about Lawson funding........and it was this morning
So at 15:20 it is a coordinated funded attack by sceptics....?
What does his donors have to do with the content of his submission?
Somebody said after that - "Slightly broken the drift" Lol
classic diversion as Jiminy says........but reasonably well fielded i thought
@martyn
And you believe a politician?
Funding is an easy one to head off given the amount the oil industry gives to CRU et al
The email sent to the committee on monday morning questioning the funding of Lawson's GWPF was an underhand 'trick' by Bob Ward
15:25 Ian Cawsey redeems his funding question with a softball re Mosher and Fuller. So obviously it was raised before the meeting and he was nominated to ask it.
I can see where their going with this. My blood pressure's gone through the roof.
Lawson has handled the technical side of the "decline" pretty well -
Lawson expertly put aside the "trick" as a red herring, then Oh dear I dont know who it is, is saying "if they could show that" "hiding the decline" is fine...? That questioner looks clueless
Ha ha on the funding question.
Alarmists fall for their own ExxonMobil propaganda?
It actually shows how unprepared they are.
They could have answered the funding question from GWPF website - http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are.html
---
We are funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.
---
Well done Bishop, keep up the live blogging.
I'll read it later. It's such a lovely day, I'm going to go plant some trees.
15:30 Lord Lawson got on the record the FOI Commissioner written opinion... clever boy.
They are getting muddled about satelite data sets now - getting a bruising from the Scots guy
But this was PUBLISHED work
Data issues are a bit of a mess. Problem seems to be the difference between data and product. Some data is there, product is published regularly but the problem is the recipie is missing still. Turner seemed to go with the 'produce your own series' when the issue is about the reliability of the existing product.
15:40 Turner was well briefed and manager to muddy the waters. Another classic tactic.
Re: Steve2 = I wish that Lawson would have answered that question on "if they had disclosed" with the fact that McIntyre requested (multiple times) during the AR4 that it be disclosed, and was rejected.
Enormous red herring about competing groups keeping their research secret from each other (as in the discovery of DNA). Once published the research needed to be open to the scrutiny of their rivals.
TerryMN
Yes good point, SteveMc got rebuffed working within the IPCC system
They desperately needed Steve there. I told them within a few hours of the announcement of the Inquiry, as I'm sure others did. But there we go. I though Peiser was extremely good on a number of points and Lawson much better briefed than you'd expect from a finance guy. Ian Cawsey was easily the best MP on show.
Pretty frustrating watching this.
Lawson may seem, sometimes, like he's lost the screw, but his mind is still pretty sharp even if he's not as articulate as he might be. And, also, how dare they, by implication, impugn his integrity - 'funding', and all that. What a cheek!
By the way, was there one mention, part of which I missed, of SteveMc - the Richelieu or 'eminense grise', for the agw crowed. The 'he who shall not be named' bogey under the bed?
Yes Lewis, Graham Stringer mentioned McIntyre by name. It was Stringer who did all the really incisive, intelligent questioning (not Ian Cawsey, as above - I was following the Bishop there, I think, not knowing any of the MPs from Adam apart from Phil Willis). I've put up some reactions on Climate Audit.
it was the 'media team' (NYT, BBC in particular) who jumped on mike's nature trick/hide the decline, in order to control the climategate narrative. it would have been so much more effective if the emphasis had been on the string of emails BBC's Paul Hudson linked to on 23rd November, which concerned his blog, Whatever happened to global warming? on October 9, 2009, as this would have exposed the cosy relationship with certain media (apart from Hudson) and blown apart the narrative that anthropogenic global warming was continuing at a rapid pace.
East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit - 1255523796.txt
Tom Wigley: Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"...
Kevin Trenberth: The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt
btw hudson has a new post:
1 March: BBC: Paul Hudson: Blame the jet stream for the coldest winter since '78/79
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/03/blame-the-jet-stream-for-the-c.shtml