Wednesday
Mar032010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Hearings transcript
Mar 3, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament An uncorrected transcript of the Science and Technology Select Committee hearings is now available here.
Mar 3, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament
Reader Comments (19)
The very first question to Phil Jones...
" Q78 Ian Stewart: Good afternoon, gentlemen, it is good to see you. Could I start by addressing the issue of alleged intent to mislead, which is the core of this issue I suppose. Professor Jones, there has been some speculation that the primary data has been lost and manipulated. Are all the raw data used in your various analyses accessible and verifiable?
Professor Jones: The simple answer is yes, ..."
[sound of coughing and choking emanating from Costa Blanca...]
One needs to read Jones very carefully.
--------------------------
Q78 Ian Stewart: ... Are all the raw data used in your various analyses accessible and verifiable?
Professor Jones: The simple answer is yes, ..."
Q108 Mr Boswell: Very briefly, Professor Jones, if you provided the raw data, in broad terms what have you withheld and why have you withheld it?
Professor Jones: We have withheld the raw station data that we have used. Much the same data is available in the USA on this Global Historical Climatology Network and we have made available all the adjustments we have made to our data as well.
Q109 Mr Boswell: What has not gone out, which has excited these allegations of undue withholding, and why did it not go out?
Professor Jones: It is the specific raw data that we used. We have always put out a gridded product and people can get to much the same raw data from other sites in the USA.
Simply not true...
-----------------------------
Q207 Graham Stringer: He [Russell] basically referred to the Wegman analysis of the argument about the hockey stick between McIntyre and Mann and the reason I refer to that is because you cite all the peer review that went on into the different assessments done by the IPCC but Wegman, after ten years of argument, seemed to side with McIntyre, who was in a tiny minority on this issue, certainly in terms of the statistical mistakes that had been made in the original Mann paper. Does that not give you some cause to worry about the peer review process at that level?
Professor Slingo: Not at all, no. The controversy around the original methods of Mann et al has been fully addressed in the peer reviewed literature and I think those issues are now largely resolved....
the media on the hearings is worth examining. shall post several times so as not to overload the post.
Reuters is amazing. After hours of searching, it is clear they wrote NOTHING on the UK 'Climategate' hearings. perhaps not surprising given the headlines on their "climate change" page!
Reuters: Climate Change Page
Mongolia: Crippling Cold Kills Livestock, Herders Suffer
HAITI: After the quake, the deluge
SOUTHERN AFRICA: Preparing for the worst
India: Getting flooded farmers back in the fields
KENYA: Malaria surges in highlands
http://www.alertnet.org/db/climatechange.htm
yet Reuters managed to allocate FIVE writers/editors to the following pieces today:
3 March: Reuters: Richard Cowan: INTERVIEW-Lieberman: Healthcare ploy could ruin climate bill
(Editing by Peter Cooney)
(Lieberman): "We have a lot of important things we should do besides healthcare reform this year, including energy-independence climate-change legislation," he added. "There are Republicans working on this who want to support this."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03112303.htm
3 March: Reuters: U.S. Senator Graham calls cap-and-trade plan dead
By Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro
(Additional reporting by Tom Doggett; editing by Chris Wilson)
Democratic Senator Evan Bayh cautioned that the future of a climate change bill may be closely linked to how Congress gets through a rancorous debate in this election year over healthcare reform.
"Let's get through healthcare because the world might look a lot different depending on how that's handled," Bayh told Reuters when asked about a climate bill...
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said there was still a chance the Senate would pass a climate bill this year with a cap-and-trade program.
"It is not dead," Chu told Bloomberg TV, referring to the cap-and-trade approach. "We need a comprehensive bill. We would very much want and need it this year."
Democratic Senator John Kerry told reporters he hoped a compromise climate control bill could be put together this month, although many meetings still must be held. Graham told reporters it will be "weeks" before a bill is ready.
But Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent working with Graham and Kerry, said a detailed outline of a bill could come within days and that it will have to include a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions that drop in future years...
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02177727.htm
the 'awful' narrative is universal:
NYT: Lauren Morello: 'Climategate' Scientist Admits 'Awful E-Mails,' but Peers Say IPCC Conclusions ...
AFP: British scientist in climate row admits 'awful' emails
Independent: Steve Connor, Michael McCarthy: Scientist admits leaked emails were 'pretty awful'
Kansas City Star: Matthew Schofield: Climategate: Inquiry shows e-mails were rude, but don't affect science around them
Times: Ben Webster: Prof Phil Jones, climate scientist, admits sending 'awful' e-mails
Guardian: David Adam: Climate scientist admits sending 'awful emails' but denies perverting peer review
Scotsman: Jenny Fyall: Scientist says 'Climategate' e-mails were awful
Channel 4: Climategate: Jones admits to 'awful emails' (this story has now been replaced by "Climategate expert: findings 'robust'".
note the original headline in the URL:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/climategate+jones+admits+to+aposawful+emailsapos/3566357
the 'robust' story begins: "The scientific findings on climate change are "robust and verifiable", the expert at the centre of the controversy over global warming data insisted today. Tom Clarke reports."
the original 'awful' story began: "Professor Phil Jones, the scientist at the centre of the Climategate row, has been defending himself in front of a group of MPs over a series of emails he sent.Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. The professor was challenged about an email to a climate change sceptic, in which he admits he doesn't want to send him data because he was worried it would be misused."
so many writers excited by 'awful'. guess they got the mantra from Associated Press:
AP: Climate scientists quizzed by British lawmakers
By SYLVIA HUI
Associated Press writer Raphael G. Satter contributed to this report
But a former researcher at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climatic Research Unit admitted he had withheld some scientific data about global temperatures collected from around the world and written some "awful" e-mails to critics who asked to see his data...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_HACKED_E_MAILS?SITE=NYONE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
BBC has nothing, unless u r clever enough to find the page where they have the feed of the hearings and u find a 'dry' report below the video. nothing from richard black or roger harrabin.
CA has a good roundup of reviews from the British Media
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/02/opening-night-reviews-in-the-uk-press/
Monckton is interviewed on PJTV
http://www.pjtv.com/v/3174
He makes some good points on the lack of response from MSM
Sorry orginally posted in the wrong area.
Does anybody have any thoughts about this quote from Sir Muir,
"to start trying to balance scepticism and other opinions on this review group. Where would that end? What kind of debates would one then have when one is trying to talk about the objective things we are all talking about today?"
I would have thought that producing a 'balanced' report, rather than one purely 'from one side of the belief spectrum', would be worth the effort. It is an 'Independent' review, not one dictated by like minded people.
The Lawson Peiser section reads really well - interesting how not hearing the sound of the rather aggressive tone that the committee adopted helps make the answers, particularly from Lawson, look much stronger. I think the points they made were clear and hopefully effective -very IoP!
I am not surprised the media picked up on the 'awful emails' quote from Phil Jones - it was a very human moment in what was otherwise quite a technical discussion.
Jones gave a false answer to Q122. See Mikkel's comment at CA.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8462890.stm
A annual warming bias of 0.05C equates to 0.5C/decade or 5C/century. So their validated climate model software has an admitted bias of 5C/century.
TerryS raises a good point which points out the futility of all such codes and modelling. I read the transcript of the hearing as, being in OZ it wasn't on free-to-air TV, and my impression was that, of all the inquisitors, only Graeme Stringer actually managed to ask any decent questions, and even then he was either hampered by time restrictions or the Chairman, or by his own unwillingness to dig deeper. Did this come across on the telecast or broadcast?
In the announcement of this inquiry it was stated:
"The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February"
The submissions received have been published on line at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
In the hearing on 1st March 2010 we get the following from the transcript:
Q179 Graham Stringer: Can I ask you one last question? Repeating Evan’s question, the NAS have boiled down in a lot of ways to a row between McIntyre and Mann about the statistical analysis...
To which the reply includes the following statement:
Sir Muir Russell: The answer on the statistical analysis is, without giving too much away, at a minute to midnight last night Professor Mann produced a submission to us on my computer screen. We will be looking at that and that will no doubt bring up the need to refer to the sort of science that you are talking about....
Questions arising:
1. How is Mann able to make a submission at 11.59 pm on the 28 February 2010 and have it accepted when the deadline was 10 February 2010?
2. Why has the submission by Mann not been published online as have all the other submissions?
Sorry: Graham Stringer.
Re: ThinkingScientist
Mann's submission was to the Muir Russell inquiry not the parliamentary inquiry. The deadline for Muir Russell was 1st March so Mann made it by 1 minute. None of the submissions to Muir Russell have been published yet.
Q127 Graham Stringer: Professor Acton – you have probably read about it – the Speaker in this place lost his job partly because he seemed to think it was more important to pursue people who had leaked MPs’ expenses rather than deal with the issue which seemed to show some problems in the way members had claimed the expenses. Do you not think that your assertions and your submission to this Committee are going along the same line as being very concerned with the leaks and then prejudging the outcome of the inquiry in what you say?
Nice one, Graham!
It is Q15 that I think needs a little more of an explanation:-
Q15 Graham Stringer: I am following you very closely, Lord Lawson, and I think all the Members of this Committee would agree with what you are saying about transparency and openness and checkability. Can you tell us how your organisation is funded? We have had an email this morning saying that you have not been transparent in the funding of your organisation.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: I do not think that is within your terms of reference. I am happy to answer it, but we have got quite a lot to do which is within the terms of reference.
Q16 Chairman: Could you just answer it very briefly?
Lord Lawson of Blaby: We have donations from private individuals and private charitable trusts. That is how we are financed. We have one absolutely strict rule: we will not accept any money at all from the energy industry or anyone who has any significant interest in the energy industry.
The email was submitted and accepted on the morning of the inquiry and the committee acted on it, if the committee also wishes to be open and transparent they should publish the entire email alongside all the other submissions that have already been published.
It looks like the UEA have added a supplementary memorandum dated March
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
Answering Dr Harris (Q.158):
Professor Jones: You have to realise that you have only seen a tenth of 1% of my emails in this respect.
(about peer-review)
Blimey - if true, what other scandals are lurking in those e-mails?
I know very little about the British system. What are the penalties for making false testimony to a parliamentary inquiry? I only ask because the CRU figured out that, as a practical matter, there was no risk to evading the FOIA laws. Could the witnesses to this hearing be under the impression that their testimony only needs to sound good but doesn't really need to be truthful? Or is it the case that the witnesses would be worried about consequences of false testimony?