Apologies only picking up this thread very late. It’s been a busy few days… It’s not for me to comment on my colleague Tom Clarke’s choice of words, but as the producer working to the climate emails story, rest assured that we are pursuing all angles and with an open mind. Our news editors are very keen that we keep the pressure and scrutiny up on the whole area of climate science both at UEA and at the IPCC.

Regards

Nick Scott Plummer
Science Producer – Channel 4 News
0044207833 3000 x 3149

If not, it’s a whitewash.

Nature has quite a history with all of this and sometimes it is prudent to have a Trustworthy insider on investigation committees so that they are privy to the whole story, can help with the investigation, and can take ethical and appropriate action after the public conclusions are announced. I want to ignore the fact that the choice was Campbell so I can remain optimistic but I can't ignore facts.

I’ve been having a hard time with the questions. Some are just too narrowly focused and I worry that if the focus is maintained that the context will be lost. However, responses can’t be too broad, either. Perhaps that’s a warning to anyone writing submissions. I’m not, and that’s good, ‘cuz I wouldn’t be able to walk the tightrope.

Steve: The questions are a big issue for me. Do these guys even know how to run an inquiry .. an inquiry should look like a legal process, not a term paper.

And everybody remember that Lamb figure from the early IPCC?

If it’s the one I think it is, even the CRUTeam couldn’t remember where that figure came from. Serious email conundrum for them on that issue. I’m sure they were telling Nature, “Not a problem, just a figure, not peer-reviewed, data good, not a problem…”