Jonathan,
A quick point: Nick Griffin got all he wanted out of his session on
Question Time because all of his opponents lent over backwards to try
and demonstrate how unacceptable were the BNP whilst giving him little
chance to present his case.
So he ended up looking like a martyr with his case escaping virtually
any scrutiny. Hopefully lessons have been learned here - and not just
the option of giving distasteful people no air-time.
Best regards,
Brian
On 1 Mar 2010, at 18:29, Jonathan Ward wrote:
> Brian
>
> You raise a good point, perhaps one missed in my knee-jerk reaction.
>
> That said, I need to look and see how the session went. I do want
> proper debate, because then the evidence should come to light and
> certain theories prevail in an forum that holds credibility. My
> concern is that it won't be a debate, and that only certain parts of
> one of these sessions will reach the media, skewing public opinion
> still further. Perhaps I am simply too cynical?!
>
> But let's say, it's the best way forward - there is still no
> explanation for me as to how this was set-up so. It still gives them
> the platform of credibility they crave and still does not include
> other relevant interest groups or witnesses (there is a full list of
> those who have submitted questions etc on the parliamentary website),
>
> I'm still undecided on the merits of this. In principal perhaps, but
> maybe in practice - no. In some ways the arguments, although I am
> not drawing parallels here, remind me of the Nick Griffin -
> Question Time scenario. Platform or no platform? Again the idea for
> many was very different to what was put into practice.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jonathan
>
> Brian Orr wrote:
>> Jonathan,
>>
>> My immediate reaction is to applaud this decision. These are two
>> high profile deniers and getting them
>> to state their case with their main supporting evidence in public
>> is exactly what we want, in my opinion.
>>
>> Sure they'll get publicity and sure they'll get more drongos
>> signing up, but they'll have been flushed out into the open and
>> they won't easily be able to change their position to any great
>> degree in the future and the might of the scientific army and
>> evidence will be able to take their position apart over the space
>> of a few months or a year at most.
>>
>> And so our case will be correspondingly strengthened by virtue of
>> the 'fabricated doubts' being demolished and only the progressively
>> shrinking 'real doubts' remaining. (When will the IPCC increase the
>> level of confidence that global warming is caused by man from its
>> current 90%?).
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Brian Orr
>>
>> On 1 Mar 2010, at 14:52, Jonathan Ward wrote:
>>
>>> Please note who the speakers are at three O’Clock….
>>>
>>>
>>> What process was used to enable two people from GWPF to be
>>> considered as witnesses?
>>> Not much surprises me anymore, but this did. I would like to know
>>> who made this decision and on what basis? What are the relevant
>>> criteria and qualifications for being a witness, and why are there
>>> two people from a recent organisation (with quite clear aims in
>>> terms of its media coverage) whilst other longer estabilished and
>>> more relevant organisation are not included?
>>> http://news.parliament.uk/2010/03/mps-examine-data-disclosure-from-university-of-east-anglia/
>>>
>>>
>>> News
>>>
>>>
>>> MPs examine data disclosure from University of East Anglia
>>>
>>> 1 March 2010
>>> *The Science and Technology Committee holds an evidence session on
>>> the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at
>>> the University of East Anglia. Watch live from 3pm.*
>>>
>>> * Video and Audio: climate data evidence session
>>> <http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979>
>>> * Commons Science and Technology Committee
>>> <http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology.cfm
>>> >
>>>
>>> *Witnesses*
>>>
>>> 3pm
>>> * Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, Global Warming Policy
>>> Foundation
>>> * Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
>>>
>>> 3.30pm
>>> * Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner
>>>
>>> 4pm
>>> * Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East
>>> Anglia
>>> * Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
>>>
>>> 4.40pm
>>>
>>> * Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Climate Change
>>> E-Mails Review
>>>
>>> 5pm
>>> * Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser
>>> * Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office
>>> * Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Defra
>>>
>>> The Committee's inquiry is examining 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 made available all the evidence submissions it
>>> has received in this inquiry ahead of this evidence session.
>>>
>>> * Memoranda: disclosure of climate data from the Climatic
>>> Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
>>> <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm
>>> >
>>>
>>> *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:
>>>
>>> * 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.
>>> * 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.
>>> * 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.
>>> * 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.
>>>
>>
|