Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« SciTech media coverage | Main | The new SciTech report »
Tuesday
Jan252011

Words that must remain unspoken

In the formal minutes that appear at the end of the SciTech report, it is possible to read a paragraph that was proposed as an amendment by Graham Stringer. This is important.

There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels hasbeen criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most [serious] allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.

This was voted down by the Tories Stephen Mosley and Stephen Metcalfe and the Labour MP, Gregg McClymont.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    The parliamentary enquiry into the various 'climategate' enquiries has now been published. In the formal minutes that appear at the end of the SciTech report, it is possible to read a paragraph that was proposed as an amendment by Graham Stringer. This

Reader Comments (34)

Stringer's proposed amendment will become the historical parliamentary last word of this chapter, I have no doubt whatsover.

Jan 25, 2011 at 12:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Well said Stringer.
A real pity it was voted down.

Jan 25, 2011 at 12:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterQ

So an IT Consultant turned property manager, a printer and a PhD in history obviously have enough expertise in this area that they feel fit to vote down a BSc (Hons) in Chemistry with regard to a statement with the following conclusion:-

“We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.”

You can smell the aroma of a party whip. This really does stink to high heaven.

Were they even involved in the original committee? Its too late to go checking.

Jan 25, 2011 at 12:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Graham Stringer really is the hero. He is the only one to place the integrity of science above political and financial interests. The ONLY one. How damning is that, for our government and our universities?

The villain of the piece.. it's impossible to choose. There are so many of them.

Jan 25, 2011 at 1:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Impressive comments by Graham Stringer - it will be interesting to see if those with journalistic integrity are capable of ignoring him.

Jan 25, 2011 at 1:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Talking of Climategate, I will soon be able to make a certain announcement. 6h25m to go...

Jan 25, 2011 at 1:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

Which will carry more weight with the public the BBC fluff documentary, the political whitewash that is the SciTech report or Peter Sissons’ deliciously acerbic articles in the Mail?

I love sceptics, they’re such… normal people.

Jan 25, 2011 at 1:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

The great Graham Stringer. As Pharos implies, the only paragraph that will stand the test of time.

Jan 25, 2011 at 2:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

The test of the CRU science is whether other scientists will judge past work a suitable base on which to move forward.

Not recommended by this scientist. I've seen too much cherry picking.

Jan 25, 2011 at 2:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

Wow! I am a west coast American. This is the first time I have gotten the idea that your government is more corrupt than mine. I.e. Seriously troublesome!

Jan 25, 2011 at 4:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterBill S

Can any of you UK people tell me if the fact that Stringer's comments appear in the formal minutes represents a quiet concession by other committe members. IOW, do the committe minutes have to be approved with a majority vote or are all members entitled to put whatever they want in the minutes?

Jan 25, 2011 at 5:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterTimG

It looks like Mosley, Metcalfe and McClymont all played blinders.

Jan 25, 2011 at 6:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

@Maurizio Morabito

"Talking of Climategate, I will soon be able to make a certain announcement. 6h25m to go...

I love certain announcements that tick like bombs.

Had to do a name search to find your blog. It would be so awfully nice of you to change that banner to something more neutral. I don't like seeing bloggers peering down at me each time I look up. That's just me. Ta!

Jan 25, 2011 at 6:39 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

RE: Graham Stinger

It is a long paragraph but it carries a lot of pay-load. Not exactly a daisy-cutter but it has a punch. (OK no more violent metaphors. Or was it simile?).

The quoted text reads like a mini-manifesto with regard to the affair.

It shall live long and it shall be quoted many, many times.

Jan 25, 2011 at 6:56 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx

It would appear that the Establishment still holds the upper hand, whether it be the biased BBC or corrupt parliamentarians or corrupt institutions. We are still the minority voice, but we have truth on our side. And the truth will out - eventually. Well done to Graham Stringer, the only MP on the committee with integrity.

Jan 25, 2011 at 7:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

So Stringer & Nurse, both scientists but not climate scientists, have separately investigated CRU and come to different conclusions. How ironic for Nurse and his 'scientific consensus is trumps' theory.

Jan 25, 2011 at 8:05 AM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Graham Stringer is a former research chemist. His questions to the Sec of State are direct and pertinent. He has the grain of history with him since, as Philip Bratby writes, the truth will out. Let's hope that he can be the seed crystal for political opposition to the Global Warming Religion and the gross waste of the national wealth.

Jan 25, 2011 at 9:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrent Hargreaves

Killer sentence by Stringer, "This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable."

Climategate has ruined the reputations of CRU, UEA, Oxburgh, Russell, Boulton and Campbell. Forever they will be associated with conducting whitewash inquiries.

Jan 25, 2011 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Martin Rees doesn't come out of it smelling of roses either.

Jan 25, 2011 at 9:33 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

And here it is..."The Climategate Inquiries" has been translated into Italian (guess by whom) and is now available at the following link:

http://brunoleonimedia.servingfreedom.net/Papers/Climategate-GWPF-Report-ITA.pdf

I'll sort out a blog about it (in English) with my Introduction to it, and post the link here in a few minutes

Jan 25, 2011 at 9:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

Perhaps it's not just members of the other committees that have axes to grind. I wonder if the MPs voting down Graham Stringer's form of words also have interests that will become clearer later. With $1.5trillion up for grabs...

Jan 25, 2011 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterIan

I believe you should also draw attention to the notes submitted by Graham Stringer MP (UEA Reviews 10): Input for the CRU Review: MJ Kelly 25.11.10 to be found here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/444/444vw11.htm

He quoted from them at one of the hearings and asked that they be included in the written papers. They are very critical of the methods adopted by CRU.

Jan 25, 2011 at 10:01 AM | Unregistered Commenteroldtimer

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/

Jan 25, 2011 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Remember these names:
This was voted down by the Tories Stephen Mosley and Stephen Metcalfe and the Labour MP, Gregg McClymont.

Of course there was arm-twisting going on behind the scenes - both Lab and Con have vested interests in the continuation of the cAGW scam.

Praise to Graham Stringer yet again, who seems to be the only one in the HoC to understand the link between the 'science' and the various money-grabbing schemes.

Sickening.

Jan 25, 2011 at 10:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

Bish, you got mentioned in name by The Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/climategate_select_committee/

(Halfway down page 2)

Jan 25, 2011 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeroen B.

"Mosley, Metcalfe and McClymont"

Not one of THE Mosleys, perchance..?

Jan 25, 2011 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Graham Stringer's paragraph needs posting all over the internet and the media.

Jan 25, 2011 at 11:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

Link to my Foreword (in English) to the Italian translation of the Bish's GWPF report:

Climategate, or the self-destruction of climate science

Jan 25, 2011 at 11:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

As the person who created the No10 petition, the only person I see who has taken this issue seriously is Graham Stringer. Paradoxically, the main impact of the "exoneration" has been to undermine the credibility of science and particularly the scientific establishment. People weren't stupid. Everyone could read the emails for themselves and could work out what was going on.

The only question that the inquiries could answer was not whether the public thought the behaviour was acceptable (we could do that for ourselves) but instead whether or not this kind of behaviour was acceptable in UK science.

Sadly, and clearly for very short term political reasons which have nothing to do with real science, the scientific elite and most MPs chose to tell the public that science should accept "scientists" behaving in the way we saw in the emails. I don't think it is an understatement to say it is going to be a long haul for UK science to rebuild its reputation after this! ... which is a real shame for all the many people who do work to high standards but have been let down by this rogue bitch of a subject.

Jan 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Haseler

Viv Evans refers to the "cAGW scam", and Ian to "£1.5 trillion up for grabs".

I am in two minds. Is this historic and exorbitant white elephant project an open-and-shut case of corruption, of the rich and powerful embarking on a ruinously expensive folly to their own narrow financial benefit? Or, alternatively, is this a betrayal by the science advisors with their incomprehensible suspension of rationality? Much as one keeps a wary eye on the motives of grubby politicians, how can they be blamed for following the science advice? What minister would dare dismiss the views of the Nobel laureate chief of the Royal Society and say he knows better?

This isn't the first time that societies have undergone an apocalypse convulsion. When oh when will this one subside?

Jan 25, 2011 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrent Hargreaves

"Graham Stringer's paragraph needs posting all over the internet and the media."

I'm really concerned when Steve McIntyre says he has lost interest in the whole subject because of the treatment of material. Scientists like Mann, Jones, Trenberth, able to continue to give fingers-up, top institutions and MSM following suit.

Jan 25, 2011 at 12:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterLucy Skywalker

@Brent Hargreaves My theory for what it is worth is that politicians deliberately increased the money supply in the late 90’s and beyond to distract the population at large in the west with lots of money whilst they embarked on their grandiose schemes to rule the world with a world government. Part of this grand scheme involved the control of energy, and what better way than by demonising Carbon, a totally ridiculous notion if ever there has been one given carbon is at the core of all life. Climate scientists have fallen into the trap of acting irresponsibly, by being showed in money and having been given a powerful voice on the world stage. They have considered themselves above criticism because politicians have batted aside all challenges to their work and suppressed all political debate by using agencies such as the UN and EU which have no democratic legitimacy.

What has gone wrong is the money has run out, an event the political class and their shadowy agents didn’t foresee, and as a consequence political credibility is sinking every day of the week. The US which has the most open means for the people to choose their own candidates locally has shown the way forward, as opposed to the UK where the central party tends to impose its will on local constituencies. The peoples of the world are slowly waking up to what has been going on, but there is a way to go yet. Everything is up for change and matters may take some unexpected turns due to the chaos in Ireland. But at the end of the day everyone should understand by now this is not about science.

Jan 25, 2011 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Geany

has anyone complained about the Horizon program, and the handwaving away of the enquiries..

Adding Stringers ammendment to the complaint, would surely indicate that the Science Under Attack - program did the public a dis-service...

Adding the newspaper articles response to the SciTech committe unhapiness with the enquiries would also be appropriate.

Jan 25, 2011 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Bill S

Wow! I am a west coast American. This is the first time I have gotten the idea that your government is more corrupt than mine. I.e. Seriously troublesome!

Heh, I'm an east coast American. I figured it out sooner. But then, we are three hours ahead. :-)

Jan 25, 2011 at 11:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil R

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>