Jan
The shit hits the fan: UK Parliament to investigate CRU
The UK Parliament has just announced that the Science and Technology Committee will be investigating the shenanigans of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia.
Here’s the announcement.
Science and Technology Committee Announcement
Session 2009-10
22 January 2010
THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:
— What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
— Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
— How independent are the other two international data sets?
The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.
Background
On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds .
Submissions
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:
Each submission should:
a) be no more than 3,000 words in length
b)be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c)have numbered paragraphs
d)include a declaration of interests.
A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Climatic Research Unit”. An additional paper copy should be sent to:
The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
Please also note that:
—Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
—Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
—Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
—Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.
Notes to Editors
Media Enquiries: Becky Jones: 020 7219 5693
Committee Website: http://www.parliament.uk/science
Watch committees and parliamentary debates online: www.parliamentlive.tv
Publications/Reports/Reference Material: Copies of all select committee reports are available from the Parliamentary Bookshop (12 Bridge St, Westminster, 020 7219 3890) or the Stationery Office (0845 7023474). Committee reports, press releases, evidence transcripts, Bills; research papers, a directory of MPs, plus Hansard (from 8am daily) and much more, can be found on www.parliament.uk.
PDF of announcement to send to your political representatives: UK Parliament CRU Investigation
Source: Parliment.UK
Possibly related posts:
- Former student claims Climategate University ‘often’ falsified data
- Complete, unedited video of UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing, with Phil Jones and others
- Royal Society capitulates on climate debate in worst week for global warmers since Climategate
- Royal Society of Chemistry backs 36,000 physicists in condemning Climategate
- Swedegate: Climate professor’s lies exposed By Swedish meteorologists
Pity they didn’t check the science before spending a few £billion on implementation of climate strategy.
They just play the “GAME”promoting the propoganda laid down by ;DEFRA,CARBON TRUST,ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY,UK CLIMATE IMPACT PROGRAMME,INTERRA,UN,ETC.
“Use emotions and Visuals”
“Fear can create apathy if individuals have no “agency” to act upon the threat.USE FEARwith great caution”
“Don’t attack or criticise home or family”
“Don’t emphasise the cost”
Good for the UK. Now we need similar hearings in our House Committee on Science and Technology. This Committe once chaired by algore has been the primary tool for driving the AGW scam forward in the USA. Current committee chair Bart Gordon was chosen by algore to take his House seat when he moved to the Senate in the 1980′s. Although tacking moderate on most issues over the years Mr. Gordon has always been in the tank for al’s big adventure in becoming meaningful. Calling in the crooks for a good public grilling is just what we need to move the ball. Anyone wondering if real progress is being made by this site and others should consider Mr. Gordon’s recent announcement that he will retire. Having won easy re-election campaigns for 26 years he made his suprise announcement in early December stating “I thought about this over the Thanksgiving weekend” That would be the “Thanksgiving weekend” when climategate broke. You can be sure than Bart, knowing all of the scientists involved understood that he had been shown as a fool at best and malignant toad at worst. The gig being up he decided to take his sack of tax-gold and retire. I’m certain he’ll pop up later in some cush job related to the green money machine. It would only be right since they owe him for the years he spent stoking the beasts engine with tax dollars. Politically he is this scandal’s biggest casualty to date.
I have created a PDF of the actual announcement page at the Parliament web site. I’ve added a link at the end of the article. I suggest that all of us here in the states send this PDF with their own unique cover letter to their senators and congressmen, urging them to do our own US investigation of Penn State, NASA and whereever it leads.
Clearly the UN has shown it can’t be trusted.
On the other hand, the investigators cannot include our own Nobel Prize winning Al Gore, or anybody else who has already been identified as a “warmist”, “alarmist”, etc.
India’s Minister for Environment & Forests Jairam Ramesh has said India would soon have a well-equipped national agency for climate change assessment, as the UN body had proven unequal to the task…….
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/An–Indian-IPCC–on-the-way–Jairam/570786
This is what is needed. Country specific peer review bodies where the scientific method prevails. Not part time lobbyists at the UN.
The IPCC is now defunct, Pachauri should not be allowed to resign, he should stay where he is, to remind everyone what the IPCC was about. Let the ship sink with all aboard.
I agree. Why lose the caveman just as he’s becoming useful? As to the national peer review bodies I would have to raise the point that our (UK, USA, Canada, Germany) current government science agencies already have a specific duty to be independent of politics. I would submit that the green disease was transmitted from these agencies and their political masters to the U.N. Afterall the UN is a perfect vessel for taking meaningless claptrap and adding a bit of ersatz gravitas to it. Who ever voted in an election for any member of the UN? They have no real constituents to answer to and therefore no real sense of reponsibility to restrain them. Wouldn’t it be better to purge the hell out of the existing agencies and remake them in the image that was so successfully manipulated?