So it is perhaps not so surprising that Stringer rose fearlessly to the task in hand, while the others perhaps less courageously chose to adopt the tactically safer role, reminiscent of the proverbial Three Monkeys who saw, heard and spoke no evil.

G. Stringer MP is a Chemist. So am I. Simplistically put, we both know that if you mix A + B in a test tube, you get C every time. No supposition, no belief needed, just use the evidence that can be replicated over and over.

Oxford offered Sherrington the Waynflete Chair of Physiology in 1913.

. The electors to that chair unanimously recommended Sherrington without considering any other candidates. Sherrington enjoyed the honor of teaching many bright students at Oxford. Over a handful of his students were Rhodes’ scholars and three went on to be Nobel laureates. The three are Sir John Eccles,
Ragnar Arthur Granit and Lord Howard Florey.

Sherrington’s philosophy as a teacher can be seen in his response to the question of what was the real function of Oxford University in the world. Sherrington said:

“after some hundreds of years of experience we think that we have learned here in Oxford how to teach what is known. But now with the undeniable upsurge of scientific research, we cannot continue to rely on the mere fact that we have learned how to teach what is known. We must learn to teach the best attitude to what is not yet known. This also may take centuries to acquire but we cannot escape this new challenge, nor do we want to.”

Have you resolved the issues with your submission yet, in particular the cause of the inaccurate reconstruction of Briffa’s plot and how many chronologies had been replaced in your sensitivity test?

As the committee had been made aware of these issues, I’m afraid they might have rather discounted your submission unless you had given some clarification on these points.

It was refreshing to see a committee member who actually understood the issues and was not afraid to base his questions on that understanding.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/481/48106.htm#a9

The penultimate paragraph No.65 concludes

“….Third, that climate science has a great responsibility in terms of providing the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge that they need to secure our future and that this responsibility means that the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right; the quality and transparency of the science must be irreproachable.”

I reckon this is quite encouraging. None of the committee members will be naive, and I should say they have smelled a bit of a rat. They have to write a report for the record, but in the British way, that does not mean their beliefs are restricted to the published contents. It is to be hoped that some coherent questioning of the whole process is at least started.