I meant to apologise for some cases of mistaken identity. I was using Parliament's own video feed, which didn't superimpose the names of speakers. This led to me making a bit of a pickle of several of them, including Graham Stringer, the star of the show, who I labelled as Ian Cawsey for a while. I've been through and fixed them all, including in the comments. Sorry.
Here's the bit from Jones statement that was bothering me:
Stringer: Well I will plug on because I've got one of the quotes from your emails which says "why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to find something wrong with it."...to Hughes. Now that's your email. Now that's the nature of science isn't it, that scientists make their reputations by proving or disproving what other scientists have done previously. Your statement there appears to be anti-scientific and the books that people have written around this issue have persuaded me that you have not provided all the information - the programs, the weather stations, - all the information available so that people can replicate your work, and to say the data is freely available in the United States doesn't enable anyone to go through your workings and agree with you or disagree with you.
Jones: Well the list of stations, we did make that available in 2008, so that has been on our website...
Stringer: How long had people been asking for it at that time?
Stringer: You're talking about some papers from 1990 aren't you, that have been kept secret?
Jones: No. There was a paper in1990 and we were asked for the data in that paper, which I was talking about in the previous question, that was made available straight away. The list of stations was made available after about six months, from the first FoI request in about early 2007.
Now I would be grateful if someone would check the transcript for me, but Jones' legendary email in which he rejected Hughes request for data was in early 2005, so I'm struggling to see how the list of stations was released "straight away" in early 2007. Am I missing something here?
It's all over! First something to eat and a glass of wine. Then I'll post up some reaction.
18:04 Is all CRU data and code available? Witnesses will check the story out and write.
18:01 Willis says chief scientist should prevent suppression of data in future. Beddington says there are issues. Proprietory data argument again. Beddington does not know if NOAA has same problem.
18:00 Beddington says new temperature set was not in response to the UEA emails.
17:58 Slingo says uncertainties order of magnitude higher for satellites.
One more to go
17:20 When will they report? Russell says he doesn't know.
17:19 Ian Stewart asks about Jones refusal to give data to Hughes. Was he consistent in refusing this? Russell confirms they will look at this. This is important because we know it was supplied to others.
17:17 Willis says peer review aspects have disturbed the committee.
17:14 Willis asks why scientific inquiry is not part of the Russell review. Why can't I understand Russell's responses? "It would be a completely different thing".
Two more to go
16:52 Harris cites IoP submission. Do emails reveal anything that make Jones vulnerable? Jones says only seen a fraction of his emails. Says there is nothing in them to show that he has perverted the peer review process.
16:51 Harris asks about peer review process and manipulation thereof. Jones says they were already published and he was just commenting that they were not good papers. Asks about complaints to Peiser and E&E. This is Sonia B-C. Jones doesn't answer the question. Harris lets him get away with it.
16:49 Harris asks if there are issues of inter-group rivalry preventing disclosure of data.
That's the end of that one
16:05 Ian Stewart has another bid to see if they couldn't maybe just withhold the data. Thomas not impressed.
16:02 Discussion of whether ICO should discuss statements of ICO that FoI was breached at UEA. Was this appropriate. Is this part of the terms of reference?
15:56 Stewart talks of mass of requests and abuse of process. Thomas says there exemption for these kinds of things. Says 60 requests is not many. Stewart says scientists were exasperated. Thomas says he understands this, but sympathy is the wrong word. Says proactive disclosure is probably easiest approach.
I'll start a new thread now
15:38 I think this is Iddon, saying that scientists often keep data back until they are ready to publish. Lawson says it's not a question of data being immediately available - mentions Yamal. More important that we are open where policy matters are concerned.
15:36 Lawson discussing surface vs satellite records. Says further investigation required.
15:34 Stewart asks if NASA and NOAA records are wrong or misleading. Peiser returns to the process - is the data and code available. Asks if parliament want the public to trust the data.
Re-reading Richard Tol's post at Die Klimazweibel (can anglophone readers call it The Climate Onion?), I was struck by this:
The models assessed by the IPCC all have that abatement costs grow and accelerate as targets become more stringent. Typically, doubling the rate of emission reduction would lead to a quadrupling of costs. The cost curve in SPM.6 (and SPM.4) bends the wrong way: Incremental costs fall as policy become stricter.
The IPCC -gates have so far mainly been a feature of Working Group 2, which looks at the potential impacts of climate change. As Hans von Storch explains in the introduction to a posting by Richard Tol, this is not because the other areas of the IPCC report deserve a clean bill of health.
The WG3 report did not attract the same scrutiny. This could create the impression that WG3 wrote a sound report. That impression would be false. Just as WG2 appears to have systematically overstated the negative impacts of climate change, WG3 appears to have systematically understated the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emission reduction.
Tol's article is a must-read.
Let's round up some of the developments in the Sunday newspapers and around the blogs.
Steve McIntyre gives some of the back story on Geoffrey Boulton's CV. Was it tarted up by the mysterious Nini Yang? And why is Boulton trying to insinuate that sceptics tampered with it when it is clear that this cannot have been so. A commenter on this site notes another appearance of the IPCC in a Boulton biography.
Al Gore himself is in the New York Times, telling us to move along and that there's nothing to see here. Werner Krauss is looking for reasoned responses. The Sunday Times says Gore's hurricane science is wonky.
Booker looks at the steady draining away of credibility at the IPCC and manages to fit in citations of both The Hockey Stick Illusion and Mosher and Fuller's CRUTape Letters.
Much interesting backwards and forwards on the surface temperature records. Tamino says that the "great dying of the thermometers" has no effect on the trend. Lucia agrees. Roy Spencer says he has evidence of a spurious warming in Phil Jones' CRUTEM3 land temperature index.
Benny Peiser's submission to the Science & Technology select committee is very interesting, telling the story of the Keenan fraud allegation from the journal editor's perspective.
Richard North notes that some £11m of British taxpayers money has been delivered or pledged to Pachauri's TERI
It's snowing again.
Nick Scott-Plummer updates the story of Geoffrey Boulton's CV over at the Channel Four website. You may remember that Steve McIntyre found a copy of the CV from 2007 that referred to Boulton being on the IPCC. Boulton has now sent a contemporaneous copy of his CV to Channel Four, pointing out that this version doesn't include the line about the IPCC. Nick continues:
Asked whether he was implying dirty tricks we received another email: "Professor Boulton has no CV with that line on it, because there is no reason for it", adding: "people are free to draw their own conclusions as to why it seems to have appeared now".
There's also some pertinent comments about how the blogs are making the running on these stories, digging up small details in a very short space of time. And in fact, commenter Turning Tide, has already pointed out that the last edit date for the new version of Boulton's CV is actually July 2008, so this is perhaps not the vindication that was originally thought.