Comments on: Fred Pearce’s Column

By: Silly Season « The k2p blog

Silly Season « The k2p blog — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 05:24:40 +0000

[...] set up by an establish do tend to support the establishment that feeds them. The Pearce Inquiry into the Climategate scandal found evidence that emails had been deleted to avoid revealing them but concluded that the science [...]

By: ZT

ZT — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:31:20 +0000

True – I just watched the scarily complacent “Muir says everyone is exonerated (and we should trust him because he is a senior civil servant)” piece on BBC America from the Royal Institution – complete with disinformation on The Trick and CO2. What would Faraday and Davy have thought of this farce?

The Wegman report truly shines in comparison with the British efforts.

By: GrantB

GrantB — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:16:25 +0000

One too many “will be’s”

By: GrantB

GrantB — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:14:18 +0000

It is a pity that the Muir Russell panel didn’t include an eminent historian.

Someone who could inform the panel that their report will not be filed away and forgotten like similar reports from the pre-internet age. Someone who could point out to each member of the panel that their names will be forever associated with this report. Someone who could tell them that the obfuscation and tangential lines of enquiry that they have adopted will be critiqued and any criticisms published within hours and days. And like their report, these will be will be part of the historical record of this sorry event that future generations can research.

Assuming that they use something other than Wikipedia of course.

By: mpaul

mpaul — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:29:17 +0000

Or in this case, ‘don’t ask a question when you know that the answer is inconsistent with the conclusion you are trying to construct’.

By: Steve E

Steve E — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:19:48 +0000

“The university “failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements” – FOI law in particular – and “also the risk to the reputation of the university and indeed the credibility of UK climate science” from the affair.”

Is this perhaps the crux? CRU had no oversight. Jones & Briffa were CEO and COO and CCO (chief compliance officers) acting without a Board of Directors or as the Board of Directors. Pearce’s comment about Jones’s new title as a demotion (something I missed in my comment on the Harrabin string where I thought Jones was promoted) is very insightful and seems to support this thought.

Still, a good corporation would throw someone under the bus for what went wrong. UEA has failed again in its corporate duty.

By: JCM

JCM — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:59:54 +0000

As I have said before, Britain is bankrupt.
Financially, morally and intellectualy.
Muir Rusell amply demonstrates my point.

By: Neil Fisher

Neil Fisher — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:08:48 +0000

Re: ZT (Jul 7 16:38), I can't find a reference, but yet again "Yes, Minister" springs to mind - Sir Desmond Glazebrook (sp?) about trusting "chaps" in the City.

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:50:03 +0000

Just above the excerpt quoted Pearce names Jones' boss, the university vice-chancellor, as Sir Edward Action. What a pity that isn't true.

By: ZT

ZT — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:38:56 +0000

As the lawyers say “don’t ask a question that you don’t know the answer to” – from which one can conclude that when questions don’t get asked there is generally a good reason.