Witnesses, clockwise from top left, Richard Thomas, Professor John Beddington, Professor Julia Slingo, Professor Phil Jones, (from bottom right) Lord Lawson of Blaby, Professor Edward Acton, Professor Bob Watson and Dr Benny Peiser. Photograph: guardian.co.uk
I'll say right now that nothing in the emails undermines the case for man-made global warming. Instead it's all about how the scientists and the climate sceptics behaved.
The running order of witnesses is below, but first let's see what's on the agenda.
Committee's terms of reference
1. What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
This will tackle the allegations of misconduct made by critics on the basis of the leaked emails (there's an archive of them here). Probably the most important here is whether the scientists and university did or did not comply with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. The Information Commissioner's Office thinks not, saying FOI requests were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation". The UEA thinks it did.
Today's hearing should also cover allegations that:
• Scientists used a "trick" to "hide a decline" in temperature data derived from tree rings - this should be scotched as there is a perfectly good explanation
• Scientists tried to prevent the publication of papers that attacked their work - but were those papers too poor for publication anyway?
• Scientists based work on data from Chinese weather stations, but could not produce location data for those stations. Jones told the journal Nature last month that this was "not acceptable".
2. Are the terms of reference and scope of the independent review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
The UEA's inquiry is headed by Sir Muir Russell, who is appearing today. It will:
• Examine whether any "manipulation or suppression of data" took place, and whether this affected the scientific conclusions;
• Review how the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) deals with data and research results and their dissemination;
• Review CRU's compliance with the FOI laws;
• Review the security of the CRU holds - ie how did all those emails leak?
The UEA has also asked the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, to help reappraise the scientific conclusions of the CRU. The police are also investigating the leak of the emails.
3. How independent are the other two international data sets?
This is the one term of reference that the committee has set itself that touches directly on the science, and sticks out a bit to me. The CRU produces one of the three main global temperature records for the Earth. If there was something awry with this - which I think is unlikely - then the independence of the other two becomes important. They are produced by Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Witnesses
3.00pm. Lord Lawson, chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation
First up are the sceptics, presumably called in the interests of "balance", though neither are scientists. Lawson, a former chancellor of the exchequer, argues the cost of climate change action is prohibitive, and has described the 2006 Stern report, which concluded action now was actually cheaper, as "the shoddiest pseudo-scientific and pseudo-economic document any British government has ever produced". Peiser, a social anthropologist, said recently: "The scientific community is haemorrhaging integrity and authority at an unprecedented speed and scale."
3.30pm Richard Thomas. He was the Information Commissioner from December 2002 until June 2009, the period in which many of the FOI requests in question were lodged.
4.00pm Professor Phil Jones, director of the CRU and Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor, University of East Anglia
The key witnesses. Jones, who has stood down while the investigations take place, has said the affair has so traumatised him he had considered suicide. It's sure to be a difficult session for him, though he will be supported by the head of UEA.
4.40pm Sir Muir Russell, head of the independent climate change emails review
Russell's task will be to convince the committee that his inquiry is sufficiently robust.
5.00pm Professor John Beddington, the UK government chief scientific adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Met Office chief scientist, and Professor Bob Watson, chief scientist, Defra
The sessions ends with a triumvirate of scientific big beasts. Beddington has called on climate researchers to be more open when dealing with critics and transparent when they make errors. Slingo represents the Met Office, which has had some bad press of its own. Watson is the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has also suffered negative headlines.
You have characters left
Please read our community standards.
Closing this window without pressing "Post your comment" will result in your words being lost.
Are you sure?
Thank you for your comment. This has been submitted for moderation.
Your comment has been successfully posted.
Sorry, something has gone wrong and this action cannot be completed. Please try again later.