Friday
Sep172010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill New S&T committee submissions
Sep 17, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Climate: Russell I the wake of the announcement of the reopening of the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee's investigations into Climategate, or at least into the UEA inquiries thereof, there have been a number of written submissions to the committee, which can be seen here.
- David Holland writes to complain about the way his submission to the Russell panel was mishandled.
- Doug Keenan points out that his fraud allegation was ignored
- Chris Huhne is still sticking to the "they were exonerated" line.
...and there is a lengthy submission from UEA. Notable features of this are:
There is some discussion of a non-existent allegation that Lord Oxburgh changed the terms of reference for his panel. This is not the concern. The concern is that Parliament was told that he would look at the whole of CRU's science, but he didn't. The blame for this appears to lie with UEA. The rest is very woolly.
Reader Comments (79)
Don Pablo...
have you thought of doing a simplesubmission to the enquiry, ref the practices/methodologies...
You sound like you might be able to present it better than I?
Messenger, you had to see the questioning to get my point, which is that asking this question makes it clear to all that he (I have Stringer in mind) is prepared to start a daisy-chain which will eventually lead to the compiler. Either that jogs O's memory, and we get a quick answer, or it doesn't and Stringer does indeed follow the daisy-chain, and we get a slower one. The way Stringer framed his qs on this topic left it open to Oxburgh to obfuscate.
Oxburgh has already given oral evidence, so is very unlikely to do so again. The only one announced so far to give further oral evidence is Acton.
Thanks, Sara - you seem to know the protocol - can you give us further guidance? How does one submit?
Barry Woods
No, Barry I have little interest in wasting my time on the inquiry. Do you think it will go anywhere if you argue the facts? Have they ever been considered? Not in my view.
I have said time and again this is about rhetoric, not facts. The way to handle argument that "what scientists do must be acceptable" is not to point out just how sloppy they are, but to drive the point home with a sharp stick. My reply to that comment to these eejits would be: "Well, some 'scientists' still perform vivisection in the name of science -- would you want them to perform surgery on you?"
That sets up them for the second punch when they sputter some stupid reply with: "Well, what these 'scientists' did was the statistical equivalent of vivisection."
Naturally, that would draw a challenge from them. Now you can go into how "There was a Unit Root in the data and anyone with knowledge of statistics knows that means it is non-stationary, and therefore violates the cardinal assumptions of linear parametric statistics. It was the statistical equivalent of vivisection."
About this time the committee will shut up but the press will have picked up on "statistical equivalent of vivisection" and blast it all over the evening news. Nobody will understand the facts, but boy, they will understand the rhetoric.
If you fight, you fight with your mind, not your heart, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't go for the jugular.
Now back to me Irish Fairy tales. Sadly, I had to name the spider some other name. Zeds didn't sound Celtic enough.
It seems to me there needs to be a two-pronged attack. One into the misdeeds of CRU and a second one into the conspiracy to cover up the CRU misdeeds (I use the word to cover everything from illegalities to incompetence). There would appear to have been a conspiracy between Acton, Davies, Russell, Oxburgh and Beddington to cover-up the CRU misdeeds and mis-lead parliament and Her Majesty's Government (judging from Huhne's nonsense response - but then Huhne isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer).
Some excellent comments here, but I have a few concerns
1 Whatever MP's may be weak on, they take pride in their own eloquence. Telling them what to say is arrogant and guaranteed to be ignored. Imagine the intolerable glee of some geek matching up the question to an anonymous blogger suggestion. What they should welcome is a succinct summary of the most controversial issues arising from the scope and conduct of the inquiries, with a reference chain for the anorak detail. I think the Bishop has the format pretty much perfect already.
2 I'll cut the rest. Not really on thread.
TomFP: “Did an employee of the UEA compile a folder of emails and code and name it FOIA.txt? If so, to what purpose?”
Coordinate questions are a bad idea. Suppose a UEA employee compiled the folder of emails and code and named it FYEO.txt. Then Acton could simply, and truly, reply "no".
The name of the email and code dump is irrelevant. A better version of the question would be "Was the collection of CRU materials released onto the internet originally compiled, in whole or in part, by a UEA employee or consultant acting in their official capacity?".
If the original compiler was acting in an official capacity then Acton can hardly refuse to answer on the grounds that his answer might prejudice the ongoing police investigation of how the compilation subsequently came to be released on the internet.
Jane Coles - I think that question would go somewhere:
So the answers could be "yes", "no", "don't know". Ok - "yes" I think we all see where that would go next, "don't know" I'd guess at "Well who would know?" as a good follow up, "no" however I'm not sure what comes next. Now it might be "no" is given truthfully or untruthfully and I'd suggest a good follow up would be to test that but I don't know what would be a good approach. If it was given untruthfully I'd suggest it would have to be with the preconsidered defence that the respondent could justifiably claim ignorance of the matter if it were subsequently revealed that in fact UEA had been involved. So a possible follow up might be "What enquiries have you personally made that assure you that that is the case?"....
I'm guessing at this - any legal people please speak up.
not banned yet: I don't see how Acton could say "I don't know" -- he is, after all, CEO of the organization. And this isn't some minor matter -- it has probably absorbed more of his time than any other over the last ten months. Such an answer would make him look even more of a buffoon than he does already. And I don't see how he could answer "no" untruthfully. If the original compilation of email and code was official business then there will be a paper trail, one that might come to light at any time (e.g., via a leak, an FOIA request, or disclosure in connection with a court case or employment tribunal).
I wonder if one of the things that keeps Acton awake at night is the possibility of a civil action against the university. After all, the release of the emails and code was a direct result of inadequate computer security (I take this to be true by definition rather than as an empirical matter). And the reputations of a number persons who are neither UK citizens nor on the UK taxpayer payroll were undoubtedly damaged by the release. Some of those persons might seek the assistance of Carter Ruck on a 'no win, no fee' basis. Even if their case was less than impressive on purely legal grounds, the litigation would attract considerable media interest. If UEA contested it, they would have to offer up all kinds of potentially embarrassing documents sought by the plaintiffs. My guess is that they would attempt to settle out of court at the earliest opportunity. But Carter Ruck don't come cheap.
"this is about rhetoric, not facts"
So the enquiry needs a barrister or a damn good lawyer. Why has Monckton not been thought of, to draw into this? Even if his speechifying turns some people off, his listening powers are formidable, as are his proven political abilities, links, and rhetorical panache. Now if he stood just behind Stringer...
"Oxburgh is a senior exec in a British subsidiary of an Italian company proven to have Maffia links"
and a good barrister would surely find a dozen more such hit remarks.
"It seems to me there needs to be a two-pronged attack. One into the misdeeds of CRU and a second one into the conspiracy to cover up the CRU misdeeds"
No, it's a three-pronged attack. This is why a good rhetorician is needed to drive home the intimate link between
* the corrupt science (eg Mann's use of outliers to drive the HS; his shoddy stats which gave the impression of logic; his failure to archive data or metadata to enable checking),
* the corrupt process (the use of Wahl & Ammann to back up Mann, disregarding the IPCC rules to admit W & A, the request to delete following David Holland's FOI about all that), and
* the corrupt reviews (omitting David Holland on false premises, etc)
You can do the same with Jones:
* bad UHI estimation,
* association with the fraudulent science of W-C W
* Keenan's exclusion from the reviews
and probably more. And it's essential to include the IPCC in the picture. And the non-reasons for omitting sceptics. And I'd like to see panel members Hand and Kelly cross-questioned. They seem much the most open, and might swing for us if they began to grasp the seriousness of the situation of an unchecked, corrupted science threatening to bankrupt Western civilization.
Hand "what effect did reading HSI have on him?" and "what effect did Mann's phone call and emails to him have on him?" and "what effect did McShane & Wyner have on him - is he aware of it?"
Kelly "what questions would he now like to pose to Acton/Russell and Oxburgh"
Jane Coles - I take your points but I was seeking to demonstrate that all possible answers need to be catered for to ensure a successful questioning. Remember Oxburgh was quite at ease being a buffoon offering non specific multiple choice answers to what went on with the inquiry of which he was the Chair. (as a btw - he is also quite at ease having a serious conflict of interest and demonstrating his lack of scientific rigour, both of which you'd think should be seriously embarrassing for a Lord who sits on the HoLSTC) His only interest was damage limitation as to what went on the record of the HoCSTC. From what I saw of Acton's first appearance before them I'm pretty sure, if allowed, he'd be happy to follow Ron's lead. Yes, maybe paper trails exist but what will be the mechanism for ensuring these are identified and pursuable by the HoCSTC should they so wish? Hence the follow up to an "I don't know" of "Who would know?". Don't underestimate these people.
///From the House of Lords Register of Interests:
OXBURGH, Lord
Category 1: Directorships
Falck Renewables plc (wind energy)
2OC Ltd (clean energy)
Blue-NG Ltd (renewable power company)
Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc.
Occasional professional advice is given to: Deutschebank; Evo Electric Ltd (electric motors); Climate Change Capital; Government of Singapore (higher education; water resources; energy); Fujitsu (IT services); Geothermal Engineering Ltd
Category 5: Land and property
House in Cambridge owned jointly with wife
Category 7: Overseas visits
Visit to Copenhagen, 23-25 October 2009, as member of GLOBE UK delegation to GLOBE conference; costs of visit met by GLOBE
Category 10: Non-financial interests (a)
Director, Global Legislators' Organisation (GLOBE) Ltd
Category 10: Non-financial interests (d)
Trustee, Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI)
Category 10: Non-financial interests (e)
President, Carbon Capture & Storage Association///
Does that read like a list of interests that would make for a suitable Chair for an Independent Inquiry?
Thanks to those of you who commented on my "did an employee create FOIA.txt" question. I think some of you are forgetting (although I doubt if Acton would) that the liberator is, so far as we know, as yet unidentified, and may, in theory, pop up at any time and reveal all.
TomFP: It doesn't have to be an employee of UEA or CRU. There are also students, visiting fellows etc. So the question needs to be along the line of "did an employee or person with authorised access to the UEA computer system create FOIA.txt?"
TomFP - yes, IIRC the file was leaked with an introduction along the lines 'Global warming is too important for this info. to stay hidden'. Maybe the provider will have similar views on the proper functioning of Parliamentary Inquiries! :-)
My earlier comment was not right, sorry. The only person announced so far to give further oral evidence is Russell, not Acton. This is at
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/100931-uea-ev-session/
Maybe submissions to the committee should also suggest that they take oral evidence from some sceptics?
Didn't El Reg suggest that Acton had been asked back as well? Perhaps the Bishop could check with Andrew O.
not banned yet:
(i) Imagine that the CE of BP told a Congressional committee that he didn't know where the Gulf of Mexico was. He would not survive the next board meeting. UEA also has a board -- called 'Council' -- and a subset of its members, probably those who sit on the 'Planning & Resources Committee', are roughly equivalent to the board of a commercial company. If the VC loses the confidence of that group of people, including, crucially, the Chairman of Council, then he might as well pack his bags.
(ii) I agree that if Acton said "no", knowing it to be false, then HoCSTC would likely have no immediate way of detecting that. My point is that it would simply be too risky for Acton since the truth might well emerge later. And lying to a HoC committee is not a trivial matter -- again, he might well lose his job as a result. Remember that all UK universities (except for the University of Buckingham) are surgically attached to the government teat.
Phillip Bratby:
Suppose Acton answers "no" to the question "Was the collection of CRU materials released onto the internet originally compiled, in whole or in part, by a UEA employee or consultant acting in their official capacity?". Then one can ask your question "Was the collection of CRU materials released onto the internet compiled by someone with authorised access to the relevant UEA computer systems?" But, whatever Acton knows, I think he would (possibly legitimately) refuse to answer that question until such time as the never-ending police investigation actually ends. And I doubt that the HoCSTC would wish to give the appearance of prejudicing a police investigation. The initiation of the police investigation was a stroke of genius by some Machiavellian UEA official.
Jane, I fear you are right about Acton's refusal to answer on the grounds of not "prejudicing" the work of Mr Plod. But again, I stress that anyone fielding questions about the liberation of the emails must have in mind that his responses may at any moment be compromised by the emergence of the liberator to reveal all.
I remain suspicious that the file was a compilation off stuff to be WITHELD from an FOI applicant, should other means of frustrating him fail.
Jane
Yes, the police investigation needs to be terminated so that the excuse of prejudicing an ongoing police investigation cannot be used.
Bish
You've been keeping an eye on the investigation. Any news on it? If they haven't found the "culprit" yet, I doubt they ever will. They are just wasting money now.
Messenger, you are right! The Register at
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/oxburgh_science_select_committee/page2.html
says "Muir Russell will appear before the select committee next month, and Anglia's Vice Chancellor Acton has agreed to make a further appearance".
Don Pablo..
If noboy gets it into the public record...
Then as it is not written down, it has not happened..
Once in the public record, someone may read it, someonelese may link to it,
someone else may point it out, to someonel ese, that 'that' seems like a reasonable question..
Eventually someone else, 'important enough' might notice.. and 'might' care
I imagine, Bishop Hill is somewhat more noticed, than he used to be..
A couple of pages submission, about the Harry_read_me.txt issue would do..
IE Like Doug Keenans brief, but very succint submission..
From the enquiries, it has been observed that Climate scientists DO NOT use the experrtise of expert statitsicans and are somewhat behind the times..
Similar, to their uses of the tools of software development data management, etc..
I'm in mind to give it a go..
But from reading many expert IT professional with 30 plus years experience in indusry, and experience of government IT project , that may be better placed to do it than I...
At some point, 'en herd' the journalists/media are going to follow 'public' opinion.
Those same journalists, will then quite happily, tear into the politicians (without ANY SHAME) for allowing the CAGW delusion to continue, despite 'evidence in plain view, that all was not well.
Thus, professor Kelly notes,
'atking exception at calling computer runs, experiments' etc
the IOP submission, the professor of computing's submissioin,etc, Doug Keenans, the latest submission, and Andrew's GWPF will be dug out, DISCOVERED and a massive scanadl, uncovered by the very same media that promoted CAGW.. Even the Guardain, with George and Fred at the lead might do it.
Just call me a climate cynic.
To refresh memories, the message at Jeff Id's blog, quotes being pertinent as ever
FOIA said, November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
This is a limited time offer, download now: http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
Sample:
0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4
Liberate the Liberator.
=============
Or Liberators. I'm much intrigued by the 'we'.
============
Uncorrected Oxburgh transcript is online at HoC:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/uc444-i/uc44401.htm
From the online transcript:
Lord O: "You will see that we ended up with only three people who had absolutely no connection with climate work, meteorology or anything of that kind-well, four, really, including me-and three people who were a bit closer to it."
I thought I heard that at the time but couldn't believe I'd got it right. Are there two Lord Oxbughs?:
///From the House of Lords Register of Interests:
OXBURGH, Lord
Category 1: Directorships
Falck Renewables plc (wind energy)
2OC Ltd (clean energy)
Blue-NG Ltd (renewable power company)
Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc.
Occasional professional advice is given to: Deutschebank; Evo Electric Ltd (electric motors); Climate Change Capital; Government of Singapore (higher education; water resources; energy); Fujitsu (IT services); Geothermal Engineering Ltd
Category 5: Land and property
House in Cambridge owned jointly with wife
Category 7: Overseas visits
Visit to Copenhagen, 23-25 October 2009, as member of GLOBE UK delegation to GLOBE conference; costs of visit met by GLOBE
Category 10: Non-financial interests (a)
Director, Global Legislators' Organisation (GLOBE) Ltd
Category 10: Non-financial interests (d)
Trustee, Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI)
Category 10: Non-financial interests (e)
President, Carbon Capture & Storage Association///
Or have I misunderstood "absolutely no connection with climate work"?
How and by whom will the most recent discoveries from Climate Audit be put on the record of the Select Committee, if possible before the next interviews? It would be very unfortunate if they could be passed over with the later excuse that they hadn't been brought to the committee's attention. Obviously the most appropriate thing would be for McIntyre to make a written submission, but I fear that Achilles may be in his tent somewhat at the moment. The GWPF should be ready to don the armour here if necessary and at least make reference to them in its submission.