The Muir Russell Inquiry revealed itself to the world on Feb 11, 2010. Nothing good has been said about it since. At this press conference, the hapless Muir Russell looked into the camera and said that we should believe that they are independent because they “are independent”. Their website contained (and still contains) misrepresentations, primarily about Geoffrey Boulton. One panelist has already resigned.
The previous day – February 10, 2010 – was the last day for submissions to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry, asking about the terms of reference of the Russell Inquiry.
Obviously, if the submissions were going in this week, they’d be totally different. The problems with the UEA “remit” are not the terms of reference, but the composition of the panel and the implementation of the remit by Geoffrey Boulton (Muir Russell at this point appearing to be a hapless figurehead). These are the issues that would be the topic of submissions this week.
People have been wondering about the long delay between the announcement of the Inquiry on Dec 3, 2009 and its unveiling on Feb 11, 2010. And the short fuse for public submissions. Perhaps the unveiling of the Inquiry on the day after the last day for submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry is a coincidence. Or perhaps the wily Boulton waited until the submission period was over before putting his cards on the table.
Regardless, there’s an obvious answer. The Science and Technology Committee needs to re-open their submissions. That’s what interested parties should be demanding.
Forget the idea that Boulton might do the honorable thing and resign. He’s the one that’s running this wretched inquiry, not the hapless Muir Russell.
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:
Feb 11, 2010
February-15-10 1:25:57 PM
Climate Change E-Mails Review
196 Rose Street