The Reviews into the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit's E-mails - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Formal Minutes

Monday 17 January 2011

Members present:

Mr Andrew Miller, in the Chair
Gregg McClymont

Stephen Metcalfe

Stephen Mosley

Graham Stringer

Draft Report (The Reviews into the Climatic Research Unit's E-mails at the University of East Anglia), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 97 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 98 read.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from "science" in line 3 to the end of the paragraph and add "There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels has been criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU's work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly's notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU's controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most series allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised.".—(Graham Stringer.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1

Graham Stringer   

Noes, 3

Gregg McClymont

Stephen Metcalfe

Stephen Mosley

Paragraph 98 agreed to.

Annex and Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the title of the Report be changed to the following: The Reviews into the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit's E-mails. —(The Chair.)

Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, together with written evidence reported and ordered to be published on 14 July, 8 September, 13 October, and 24 November.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for placing in the Library and Parliamentary Archives.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 19 January 2011 at 9.10 am

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 25 January 2011