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.