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.
>>
>
|