Bishop Hill +++Climategate hearings reconvened+++
The House of Commons Science and Technology COmmittee has announced that it is to hear evidence from Lord Oxburgh next week:
The Science and Technology Committee will hold an oral evidence session following-up to the previous committee’s report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
The session will be on:
Wednesday 8 September 2010 at 10.30 am
Thatcher Room, House of Commons
The Committee will take evidence from Lord Oxburgh, who headed the International Panel that was set up by the University to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit.
An oral evidence session with Sir Muir Russell, who headed the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, will be announced in October.
The sessions will focus on how the two reviews responded to the former committee’s recommendations about the reviews and how they carried out their work.
Reader Comments (20)
Good!
But will there be an invitation extended to those who made submissions to these enquiries, to give their analysis of the enquiries' responses?
That was a rhetorical question, incidentally. Despite a burning desire to see the HOCSC give Oxburgh and Russell the proverbial kickings they deserve, I'm far too long in the tooth now in the climate debate to actually expect that it will ever happen. At most, I'm expecting a couple of hard-sounding questions to be answered with half-assed responses, and the potential hard-line of questioning to just.. fizzle.
Is Granham Stringer still on the committee, hope so as he will know the right questions to ask, right answers will be more difficult.
It is a simple question of Authority.
How important does the Committee regard its own independence and authority over and above the areas they question?
If this is about asserting publicly that authority then there may be hope. The UAE and the Met Office may believe they got away with their "merry dance".
We will will only know with the follow up questions to the first answers.
Lion or pussycat?
I was one of those naive enough to hold out some hope for some penetration on the part of Oxburgh and Russell. Despite my severe disappointment at their, presumably deliberate, feebleness, I am now holding out some hope that this Parliamentary Committee will show a little more vim and vigour. But I am now jaded and cynical enough not to want to bet on it.
Is this follow-up normal practice? Or does it signify the perpetrators being dragged back to Parliament to defend themselves for carrying out their instructions so shoddily?
To me it sounds like they're being taken into the Headmaster's study for a severe talking-to...and maybe a thrashing.
A dunking could be in order to put the feudal Barrons back under the authority of parliament.
I pity Sir Muir Russell going for the second session as all the awkward questions will be deflected in the first session towards his committee in a game of pass the buck.
Well perhaps pity is not quite what I mean, I hope they both get the dressing down that they deserve.
Does this mean whitewashing the whitewash?
Up before the Headmaster.
"Bend over Oxburgh and Russell. This is going to hurt me more than you"
What I’d like to hear:-
MP: When we investigated Climategate we pretty much skated the issues for the following reasons
1) We didn’t have the time (election and all that)
2) We didn’t have the skills
3) We were expecting you guys to do a pucker job.
So, what’s your excuse?
Is this the same House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that was informed on the 31st March that the UEA had decided on a scientific assessment of CRU's key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself.
And now the Technology Committee is saying Oxburg was only to,
assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit.
Why bother wasting time, seems the goal posts have moved anyway.
Stringer is still on the committee. Membership here: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/membership/
Far be it from me to tell a Bishop what to do, but here's a thought.
Might it not be a good idea to make sure that each member of the parliamentary committee gets a tightly written summary of the conclusions of your forthcoming publication ASAP?
This will help remove some potential excuses and may lead to better questions.
Have the MPs really learnt from (let's be kind) the lack of rigour of the previous reviews, or are they about to conduct yet another whitewash and thereby increase the depths of contempt in which they are held?
Slightly O/T but there is a good (IMHO) Guest Post by Thomas Fuller over at WUWT. It's about the hysteria created by these politicians and 'men of science' that really does need to be taken on board by the would-be movers and shakers on both sides of the pond.
How about formulating a list of questions that should be asked of Oxburgh and Russell and sending the questions to each committee member?
It will be interesting to see if the Select Committee bring to the attention of UEA and the Inquiry Chairs their point No 21 in the Conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee report:-
"The two inquiries
21. The two reviews or inquiries need to map their activities to ensure that there are no unmanaged overlaps or gaps. If there are, the whole process could be undermined. (Paragraph 134)"
Also 24 under Conclusions is worth reading again: -
"24. A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet's decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable. (Paragraph 138)"
Repeat:-
"the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable."
September 8th? Man, that doesn't give Oxburgh much time to prepare. I strikes me as a bit unreasonable. I mean Oxburgh's going to have to review all 5 pages of his report in order to be ready.
"The sessions will focus on how the two reviews responded to the former committee’s recommendations about the reviews and how they carried out their work."
This is the announced intent of the new hearings.
How did the topic arise? Whose idea is it to hold these sessions?
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1295-climategate-inquiries-its-up-to-graham-stringer-and-andrew-montford-now.html
Probably Graham Stringer, according to this.
"Thatcher Room, House of Commons"
Is that like Room 101..?