I'll post any coverage of the hearings here.
So far there's only Guardian Eco. Apparently the exchange over the Oxburgh papers didn't fluster the witnesses! They also get the committee chairman's name wrong.
I thought the committee's performance was much better than last time around - I got the impression of best efforts being made by most members, but it's always difficult for people coming to an issue fresh to properly question people with an in-depth knowledge. This is only worse when the witnesses are such expert dodgers and weavers and avoiders of questions.
When you are live-blogging you can't really watch the video, so I'd like to take another look at how the witnesses reacted. There are certainly a number of the responses where the answers appeared to contradict my understanding of the facts. There was obviously also a great deal of waffling and avoiding of questions, particularly by Russell. One hopes that the committee were suitably unimpressed.
The question now becomes whether the committee will issue a report, take the issue forward in some other way, or simply let it drop. I have no feeling for which way they will turn. They can have little doubt that all was not well with the inquiries, and logic would therefore dictate that they take some further action. But of course, logic is not always a factor in matters of public policy.
10:38 And that's it.
10:35 Miller asks if the panel have anything else to add. Acton welcomes panel's involvement and government response.
10:35 Mosley asks what changes have been made at UEA. Acton says CRU drawn closer into ENV, to ensure no repeat of FOI problems. Encouraging closer involvement with statisticians. Davies says investing in data archiving.
10:34 Mosley asks if UEA was involved in the IAC report. Davies said not as a university, but individuals may have been.
10:32 Russell says Holland's evidence was taken into account.
I see that the BBC is going to cover the S&TC hearings today. AFAIK, they didn't attend Oxburgh's appearance the other day, so I wonder what brought this rush of blood to the head.
The link for the Beeb's coverage is here. It's worth glancing at their description of the background to the hearings. Our national broadcaster seems to be completely unaware of why the Science and Technology Committee have decided to interview the principals from the UEA inquiries.
It's probably something to do with the unique way they're funded.
The big news of tomorrow is likely to be the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee interviewing UEA bigwigs Acton and Davies, together with Sir Muir Russell. The three of them are going to have to explain some of the oddities over the inquiries into the Climategate affair.
The hearings start at 9:20 am and video should be available here.
This should be compelling viewing for climate geeks. As ever, I'll be liveblogging events here.
Ben Santer is interviewed at the Climate Sight blog, and he remains something of a catfighter, aiming his claws at, among others, sceptical bloggers:
These fringe voices now have megaphones,” he continues, “and have means of amplifying their voices and trumpeting shoddy, incorrect science. We’ve seen the rise of the blogs, we’ve seen the rise of these “independent public auditors” who believe that they have carte blanche to investigate anyone who produces results they don’t agree with, and if that individual doesn’t comply with their every request, they indulge in this persecution campaign on their blogs and make your life very uncomfortable. I’ve had direct personal experience with that.
Does he sound slightly hysterical to you?
Commenters note that the Santer article has been taken down. I've retrieved it from Google cache and posted it at the bottom of the header post as a PDF.
Martin Rees appears unable to resist the temptation to ride roughshod over the Royal Society's tradition of avoiding political controversy. His latest contribution is a fairly naked piece of political advocacy - an open letter to media and business leaders, written jointly with Anthony Giddens, a left-wing academic. In it, the two men call for "a renewed impetus to international collaboration", reduced carbon emissions and the like.
It is remarkable to see two such prominent academics demonstrating such a remarkable lack of familiarity with simple logical thinking: they allude first to the floods in Pakistan, then say that they cannot be connected to climate change and then state that they represent "a stark warning".
There are a couple of interesting posts I'd like to draw your attention to on the "Climate change in schools" front.
Climate Lessons is preparing a list of all the global warming websites directed at children and is looking for help and assistance.
Meanwhile, Harmless Sky asks "What the hell are we doing to our children?"
John Shade, who runs the Climate Lessons website left these thoughts on Mike Hulme's lecture as a comment. I thought they were worth pulling into a post of their own.
I must confess to having enjoyed the talk by Professor Hulme. He spoke clearly and in a structured way, presented lots of ideas, and generally came across to me as intelligent and thoughtful. I just wish I were bright enough or informed enough to follow all of them. As it is, I still got lots to think about from it, and the notes which follow are in part intended just to share my puzzlements and prejudices.
Another round of Climate Cuttings to set you up for the weekend...
Vaclav Klaus rounds of his trip to the UK with an article in the Spectator: Thank Heavens for Bob Carter.
Also in the Spectator, Rod Liddle says that Dellers has lost his sense of humour over the 10:10 video. Liddle thinks it was "quite funny, and nicely done and even self-deprecatingly ironic". Right.
McIntyre seems to have got hold of one of Ray Bradley's emails, in which Mann's lieutenant says he has offered to drop his plagiarism charge if Wegman requests the withdrawal of his report to Congress. Commenters wonder if this amounts to blackmail and interfering with the congressional record. More at WUWT.
Donna Laframboise notes the curious case of Richard Klein, who moved from Greenpeace campaigner, to MSc, to IPCC lead author, to IPCC coordinating lead author and finally to his doctorate, in that order.
And lastly, Nature reports that space tourism will accelerate climate change.
There is video available here of a lecture given by Professor Mike Hulme entitled "How do Climate Models Gain and Exercise Authority?". Hulme asks whether deference towards climate models is justified and whether we should have confidence in them. I think the answer is "We don't know".