Bishop Hill Oxburgh live blog
Sep 8, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament I'll try to live blog Lord Oxburgh's performance, which should be starting shortly.
11:28 Oxburgh talks about FoI act and its interface with scientific research. Says anyone can cause scientist to spend great deal of time answering responses.
11:27 Waffle. I notice the press gallery is virtually empty.
11:24 What damage could sceptics do to climate change? Oxburgh says commercial lobbies have had an influence. Says academics have been patronising. Some interesting doubts over computer models.
11:20 Why were sceptics criticised. What evidence was used? Says some sceptics are extremely able. Doesn't read blogs. Discusses links to commercial interests. Link to tobacco lobbying.
11:17 Metcalfe asks about raw data. Oxburgh says raw data was useful. Discussing availability of data. Says data normally available for journal peer review!!
11:14 Miller asks about the Nature trick. Did the panel look at this question. Oxburgh says they did not look at the emails, since this was for Russell's inquiry. Oxburgh says he was aware. Refers to dictionary definition of "trick" as "way of doing something". Oxburgh says it was not an attempt to deceive. Says presentation of data is difficult - how much should you simplify? Says users of CRU data have not shown uncertainty.
11:11 Asked if primary focus was on integrity. Oxburgh says yes. Asked about levels of statistical skills. Are they out of their depth statistically? Oxburgh talking about use of inappropriate statistical methods per Hand. Says more appropriate methods would not have made a difference. How does he know?
11:08 Asks if Jones said that it was impossible to recreate temperatures over the last 1000 years. Oxburgh says he thinks he didn't. Oxburgh says concept of global temp is a subtle one. Lots of waffle about how temp records are created. Mentions massive uncertainties.
11:06 Could CRU staff recreate studies from raw data? Oxburgh says "not always". Stringer expresses surprise. Oxburgh says culture different in industry to academia. Industry always documents and records everything. Says not so in academia.
11:03 Oxburgh says the 11 papers were not chosen by his panel. Says came via the university and "I believe" the Royal Society. They were just a start. Stringer asks about Jones choosing the paper. Oxburgh says Peter Liss was involved but notes he was an oceanographer. Oxburgh dries when pressed on who provided the list.
11:02 Asking about Keenan's accusations. Oxburgh doesn't recall looking at them.
10:59 Stringer talking about Kelly's notes and failure to publish working documents. Oxburgh says nothing would have been added. Oxburgh says he hasn't seen the notes recently. Stringer quoting from the notes. Oxburgh repeats that it would not have added anything.
10:57 Stringer asks about independence. Asked about being based in the UEA registrars office (missed the point here!). Oxburgh says no. Oxburgh says university did not want a cover-up.
10:56 Oxburgh says no coordination with the Russell panel.
10:54 Asked about standards of honesty and whether the panel chose their work programme. Talking about getting key staff to relax.
10:53 Oxburgh still being pressed on amount of time. Says they didn't need more time given limited remit.
10:52 Oxburgh asked how much time each committee member spent on the report. He said they put in a lot of work beforehand. Mentions the 15 person days figure.
10:51 Oxburgh asked about superficiality of the report. Oxburgh says they worked hard and efficiently.
10:50 Oxburgh asked who sets terms of reference. Oxburgh says the terms emerged from discussions at his house with the university. Says they are set out in the first paragraph of the report.
10:48 Another member asks about the discrepancy between UEA press release and what Oxburgh did. Oxburgh says assessment of the science would not have been possible. Oxburgh says he was very clear.
10:46 Stringer asks about Acton's statement that the panel was reassessing the science. Oxburgh says that "was innaccurate". Said the UEA press release was clear. Said Acton only in post for a month at the time.
10:45 Miller says no sceptics. Oxburgh says it is not for him to discuss private views of panellists but there was one person who had been active as a sceptic. Says panel selected to have no point of view.
10:42 Oxburgh says asked to conduct brief inquiry into honesty. Reluctant to take it on. Put together panel in consultation with various people. Panel were people outside the field. Wanted people with no formal position on the field but understood the methods. Choice of panel members was Oxburgh's but in consultation. Three people with no connection to climate. Others were closer.
10:40 Miller says Oxburgh has been poorly. Asks how the panel was chosen. Oxburgh explains background - Russell panel appointment and the subsequent split into two panels.
10:38 Miller just announcing a 30second intermission
Reader Comments (53)
1hr 7min….Oxburgh says he “was approached in February to say would I chair a very brief study really of the honesty of the people not all aspects of the science we were not expected to go into the email saga……….”
Acton tells the Parliament committee on March 1st that the science would be looked at
It's pretty disturbing to speculate on why the press apparently didn't give a damn.
Of the senior environmental reporters in the U.K., who was there?
If you do not want to know the answers to questions, do not ask the questions. If you do not want to report something, do not be there to hear the information to report.
Although it is possible to view this information like many have here via streaming. They may have been listening after all. Having a group of people listening does put the pressure on though, it isn't quite the same if you're being filmed. That may help or hinder the way questions are answered, perhaps giving a false sense of security or perhaps making you feel more concerned
Steve