Apologies for posting again, but just saw something which may support
Brian's assertion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-climate-science-emails-select-committee-hearing
Under questions from the committee, prominent climate sceptics Nigel
Lawson and Benny Peiser, who represented the Global Warming Policy
Foundation, conceded that the use of the word "trick" was innocuous.
Lawson said the issue was that the scientists had not disclosed the way
they blended several separate data sets into single graph, which he
called a "fudge". Jones said this was not true, and the technique was
widely discussed in scientific papers.
Lawson and Peiser said they did not think the release of the emails
questioned the underlying science of climate change
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change>. "This is nothing
to do with the basic science, that's not the issue," Lawson said. Peiser
said the emails had "tarnished the image of British science around the
world".
Jones said some issues raised by the emails, such as an apparent
reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/freedomofinformation> requests, were
because the CRU did not have permission to release requested data, which
had been supplied by foreign weather services. Several countries,
including Sweden, Canada and Poland had refused to allow their
information to be supplied, he said.
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.
>>
>
