Bishop Hill The hearings - Muir Russell
Mar 1, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament Climate: Russell One more to go
17:20 When will they report? Russell says he doesn't know.
17:19 Ian Stewart asks about Jones refusal to give data to Hughes. Was he consistent in refusing this? Russell confirms they will look at this. This is important because we know it was supplied to others.
17:17 Willis says peer review aspects have disturbed the committee.
17:14 Willis asks why scientific inquiry is not part of the Russell review. Why can't I understand Russell's responses? "It would be a completely different thing".
17:12 Stringer asks why no statistician and no sceptic scientists. Russell says they've had a submission from Mann. Russell says sceptic and statistician would not be consistent with his approach. I can believe that.
17:10 Have they learned anything from NAS panel on integrity in science. Yes.
17:08 Stringer asks if hearings in public. Russell says no, but will be published. Backs off a little and says maybe they could, but not persuaded of it.
17:07 Will panel take evidence in public and publish in full? Russell says evidence will be published. Will evidence in confidence be disclosed? Talks of "enthusiastic commentators" on the web! Does he mean me?
17:05 Russell says they dont' want to get in the way of ICO.
17:02 Boswell asks about UEA funding the review. I still don't understand the answer.
17:00 Harris asks if Russell wants to satisfy sceptics. I didn't understand his answer.
16:58 Is statistics covered? Russell says he'll see how they go. Says they've had lots of submissions.
16:56 Russell says he asked former colleagues. Need to replace Campbell.
16:55 Harris asks who chose the team and asks about Philip Campbell
Reader Comments (27)
I have to repeat frmo, other thread, did he say that Wegman was a solid work on the issue? Good if he did.
Awww,regarding a Statistician;
the classic;
"We'll decide about the methods after we get a peek at the answer..."
RR
I've lost the feed on parliamentlive.tv. Is it just me? Do I have to go beat Virgin Media with a hockey stick?.. again?..
Same here, lost it as they asked about lay committee members. BBC feed doesn't work for me either
Steve2, yes.. he said Wegman was solid statistical work.
I've lost the feed too - right before the answer to "Do you have any lay people on the committee?"
SimonH Thought it was just me my feed gone too.
It's too warm ...
Sir, you've really kicked it up a notch with this liveblogging.
I'd be tearing my hairs out right now from the frustration of trying to download the necessary 'plug-in' components, but instead I just pop back over to your page and get your running commentary digest; I can do something useful at the same time as monitor this breaking news.
Extremely valuable. (!)
RR
I lost the feed the same moment and the BBC and Channel 4 aren't helping.
Good that he said Wegman was a solid piece of work.
I lost the feed too.
Wow, can you picture the day when the participants in a review like this one are monitoring the web in realtime?
Yowza!
RR
Maybe SteveM's post slashdotted parliament TV
Got the feed back... hit refresh! :o)
Back up for me:)
I've lost the feed too - right before the answer to "Do you have any lay people on the committee?"
I've hit the "Watch Live"button (top left) and I think I have picked it up again
So Muir has had info from 'Professor Mann', last night, on his PC - but he doesn't really think that someone fro the sceptic's side should eb participating on his panel ...
Got it.
Russell gave a world weary "Where would that end?" asks about Having a more sceptic view - you see his underlying mindset now - he wants a nice easy process - no debating here just get the report out
Could someone ask Muir about Boulton?!
What's the betting that Mann waited until the last minute so he could read SteveM's submission online before putting his in?
I missed any mention of Geoffrey Boulton, perhaps to my feed downtime. Once again [Graham Stringer]'s done much better than anyone else in challenging Russell on the need to include sceptical views to build public trust.
Nature and Campbell had too much invested in this issue - how can they let Russell get away with even considering Campbell?
Stewart's question on data sharing is a good one if it's shared amongst the team, but not sceptics.
Sir Muir Russell uses a huge amount of words to say that he doesn't know when he'll publish his review ...
Nothing like a proper British civil servant to wriggle out of committing himself ..
Will Muir Russell publish info from Mann or was it a private email?
The UEA obviously thought that they had a "safe pair of hands" in asking Sir Muir Russel to conduct the enquiry. 50 yers ago this might have been the case, when a civil srvant, havinggot everything wrong in the most establiahment way, could stage manage the procedingsto arrive at a good establishment conclusion.
The World has advanced since then and the the performance of the UEA is wanting.
Looking at the feed again from Russell about 1:55, I think his claim that he needed Cambell for his deep understanding of peer-review and then saying Campbells only problem merely stemmed from his unfortunate China interview (being found out on this blog) "he had forgotten about it" , Russell saying his only issue was Campbell statements "that contained the proposition that there was no case to answer". doesn't square with the fact he ignores the Nature editorials. Russell must think that Campbells editorial that started with
Was a totally fine attitude to take into the enquiry. And the fact that many of the UEA guys had peer reviewed stuff logged with his journal Nature, mcIntyre was refused rebutals in Nature, and they were discussed during the period of the emails, this was also fine apparently.
I think all those issues were nicely ducked there by Russell. I seem to remember seeing an interview where Campbell said something about he would duck out of the panel when issues that concerned his journal came up. How could this have been acceptable? Would that other Campbell, Alastair Campbell have been a good idea to sit on the Chilcot enquiry? Bringing to the table his deep understanding of government spin? Obviously he could've duck out whenever anything came up that directly applied to him:)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html