Comments on: “University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’”

By: Australian weather station data discarded and incomplete « TWAWKI

Australian weather station data discarded and incomplete « TWAWKI — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:04:51 +0000

[...] University hangs itself by questionable practices [...]

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:40:41 +0000

UK John – that’s not a very strong basis to stand on. Saying that in court is one thing, but saying ‘i didn’t do it’ happens all the time.

By: DCC

DCC — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:35:01 +0000

More fame for McIntyre. Andrew Montford is quoted on Britain's Channel 4 as saying: By not calling Steve McIntyre, the man outside CRU who knows most about the content and context of the emails, the [Parliamentary] committee risks appearing negligent or even worse, of refusing to hear the truth.

By: ianl8888

ianl8888 — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:13:13 +0000

With a tight general election due shortly, none of this will matter

The only inquiry with any longevity will be the Russell Muir one

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:17:38 +0000

It’s seldom the case, I agree. Something went wrong in the higher echelons. Very wrong. How everyone concerned must be looking forward to tomorrow!

By: kmye

kmye — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:34:02 +0000

It’s hard to know but the statement from UEA is so inept in the light of the release of the real letter that it makes you wonder if there weren’t some nods and winks given by someone in the ICO or higher up that ‘it won’t be a problem anymore’. That certain people came under pressure and didn’t buckle, but bit back.

This is exactly what occurred to me when I read the article. It can be tempting to just assume people (especially people you happen to opposed to at the moment) are just utter, hubristic fools, but in the end, that’s not often the case, is it?

By: JCM

JCM — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:37:17 +0000

The spokeswoman for UEA is in the difficult position of trying to sound competent when it appears to me that Acton is either not seeking professional advice or ignoring it when given. He is freelancing, something not allowed in crisis management. He needs to be told to pay attention to professionals and take note that his main job is to preserve and enhance the reputation of UEA. Engaging in a pissing contest with ICO is a foolish enterprise.

By: Graham

Graham — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:47:41 +0000

I’m no legal expert, but surely the mere discussion of the commission of an illegal act is known as conspiracy, and is equally illegal. Enough people have been sent to jail for discussing terrorist acts just recently, on that basis.

Irespective of that, it seems totally amoral for a supposedly reputable institue to use semantics, legal tricks and duplicity as evidence at an inquiry intended to restore their reputation.

It seems clear that they hold their reputations in low esteem and are more interested in saving their necks and salaries above all else, and if they need to deploy more ‘tricks’ then they have the necessary expertise in that field.

By: David Smith

David Smith — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:44:40 +0000

UEA’s behavior reinforces my view that there is little hope that climate science establishment will reform itself. Change will come in five to fifteen years, when the young turks in graduate school filter into the academic ranks as their seniors retire. No sooner.

There is a hopeful sign, however, that the Northern Hemisphere’s bad winter will soon wind down. Here is a photo taken today of the flowers on a small tree in my yard:

http://davidsmith1.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/0227101.jpg

These flowers are appearing four to six weeks later than normal.

I’m still looking for a first sign of hope for climate science. So far, nothing. Judith Curry’s article (I admire her courage and her thought process on this) has, as best as I can tell, fallen on sterile soil. I’ll keeping looking for that first flower.

By: Copner

Copner — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:21:51 +0000

On the UEA’s page, it says: “The existence or otherwise of prima facie evidence is insufficient to reach any conclusions about this matter.”

Why does it say “or otherwise”?

Is they suggesting that there some doubt that the prima facie evidence exists?

I thought that there is no question that the prima facie evidence exists. I thought that the only question was whether it the prima facie evidence is sufficient to prove the case of a breach of 77.