Comments on: Oral testimony at UK Parliamentary Inquiry

By: PaulM

PaulM — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:51:23 +0000

Re: curious (Feb 26 07:38), This is interesting and encouraging. There are many responses from individuals, almost all of them critical of CRU, though many of them drifted well outside the rather narrow remit. Well worth reading!

By: Arthur Dent

Arthur Dent — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:10:14 +0000

We have different views, and if the review proceeds one of us will probably be shown to be correct! However as Guido Fawkes has pointed out it’s possible that the election may be called on Saturday which would be the end of the enquiry.

By: Umbongo

Umbongo — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:17:34 +0000

I think you’ll find that none of the committee voted for a “Homeopathy Act” committing the UK taxpayer to hundreds of billions of pounds to underwrite homeopathy. Nor have any of them, as far as I am aware, ever supported homeopathy with any statements to the effect that the science of homeopathy is settled and that those sceptical of homeopathy are flat-earthers or worse. Kicking homeopathy is easy and, more to the point, there are few political penalties payable for being a homeopathy sceptic.

As for “not being a stooge of government” this December 2009 report

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/158/15803.htm

by the Committee following (but not actuated by) the dismissal of Prof Nutt and addressing the principles for advising government on science concluded that “We welcome the Government’s success in improving the mechanisms by which scientific advice can be fed through into policy. The network of Chief Scientific Advisers and scientific advisory committees has the potential to strengthen the UK’s ability to make policy decisions that are based on the best available evidence and to make the UK Government’s science advisory system an international exemplar.” This bland conclusion is the response to a government whose scientific advisers are, for the most part, blatant advocates of government policy rather than disinterested guardians of scientific truth.

By: curious

curious — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:38:10 +0000

The written evidence submitted is available here (apologies if this has alreday been posted):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/contents.htm

By: Arthur Dent

Arthur Dent — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:07:21 +0000

For those interested in the type of output from the House of Commmons Science & Technology Committee and to demonstarte that it is far from being a Government stooge. Here is a link to their most recent rport on Homeopathy.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf

The Chairman of the Committee, Phil Willis MP, said:

“This was a challenging inquiry which provoked strong reactions. We were seeking to determine whether the Government’s policies on homeopathy are evidence based on current evidence. They are not.

“It sets an unfortunate precedent for the Department of Health to consider that the existence of a community which believes that homeopathy works is ‘evidence’ enough to continue spending public money on it. This also sends out a confused message, and has potentially harmful consequences. We await the Government’s response to our report with interest.”

By: toby

toby — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:59:02 +0000

Ha,! Ha!:) “left outside in the cold” .. that’s good, Steve, you’re on form today, always the comedian.

By: Umbongo

Umbongo — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:30:32 +0000

I share your hope if not your (qualified) optimism. The committee may be “fiercely independent”, as you write, but independent of whom exactly? If anyone in government or opposition is worried that this committee is going to upset the consensus (the political one, not the scientific one) their worries are very well concealed. I would be more comforted if the committee’s appointments (of advisers) and choice of witnesses so far did not point to a “done deal”. We shall see.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:46:43 +0000

Please delete the above – I missed the Match 1 (sic) date.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:44:56 +0000

Does anyone have any information on what actually happened?

By: Arthur Dent

Arthur Dent — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:44:03 +0000

Thanks for the compliment. I agree that there is a great British political tradition of setting up enquiries to produce either a predetermined result or to push embarassing issues into the long grass. The Hutton, Butler and Chilcott enquiries related to the Iraq War and the Saville Enquiry into “Bloody Sunday” which has now been sitting for 10 years all fall into this tradition so beautifully sent up in Yes Minister.

However this is not a government enquiry but one established by a fiercely independent select committee of the House. Most of their reports are cogent and to the point and rarely aimed at either government spin or whitewash. Their treatment of Ministers and Civil Servants can be very pointed and witnesses do not usually have a comfortable time.

That is why I am more hopeful, however I may be sadly disappointed