Comments on: Lord Russell of Holyrood

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:06:24 +0000

By way of contrast, here’s how Harvard treated an unrelated case of scientific misconduct:

http://harvardmagazine.com/breaking-news/harvard-dean-details-hauser-scientific-misconduct

By: Dagelijkse Standaard » Welke commissie wast witter?

Dagelijkse Standaard » Welke commissie wast witter? — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:31:37 +0000

[...] hebben hun eerste indrukken van het rapport reeds op het net gezet. Zie hier, hier hier en [...]

By: Climategate Kidney Stone « Shub Niggurath Climate

Climategate Kidney Stone « Shub Niggurath Climate — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:28:03 +0000

[...] Muir Russel 6 For those who expected a positive outcome from the Climategate email review chaired by Muir Russel, knew that nothing good would come out of it, but hoped in a tiny corner of your hearts [...]

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:07:26 +0000

I think you give them too much credit. If they were capable of that level of planning they would do a lot better. Fact is they know that 99% of the people will only read the headlines or listen to the soundbite news so as long as it says “CRU Cleared” that will be the end of it.

The press has been reduced to a bunch of “monkeys with microphones”. They are unwilling or incapable of serious investigative journalism. That is left to a very few brave souls who nail down the facts and usually in the new media (web, blogs etc).

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:13:03 +0000

Re: johnh (Jul 7 12:41), He Who Must NOT be Named OR Interviewed.

By: WINNING “HEARTS AND MINDS” FOR CLIMATE WARMING | RUTHFULLY YOURS

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:34:26 +0000

[...] Climate Audit’s McIntyre on Climategate report: It ‘adopted a unique inquiry process in …‘…a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh. Remarkably, the Muir Russell inquiry ruled on this issue without actually citing IPCC procedures…Instead of examining IPCC rules, they asked John Mitchell, the Review Editor, for his opinion. Mitchell, needless to say, was a Climategate correspondent, who gave untruthful answers when refusing David Holland’s FOI request for materials’ [...]

By: cicero

cicero — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:25:26 +0000

Maybe at some point, I hope that either Steve or Ross will comment on the substance of Chap 6 and App 7 in the report.

These sections of the report read basically that the Russell panel with a little help from a programmer was able to do in 2 days using data from other sources what skeptics have been trying to do for years butting heads with CRU and that there was never a need to bother with the FoI’s.

I’m confused about this… but I sense that the Russell panel is also.

By: Sundance

Sundance — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:55:09 +0000

You have enough information to write a best seller on the entire affair. We will know in 20 years if October/November 2009 was a tipping point in history.

By: dougie

dougie — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:39:01 +0000

point well made.
that will be a good one.

By: Yet another Climategate whitewash | Australian Climate Madness

Yet another Climategate whitewash | Australian Climate Madness — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:10:41 +0000

[...] Climate Audit's McIntyre on Climategate report: It 'adopted a unique inquiry process in which they i…'…a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton's Royal Society of Edinburgh. Remarkably, the Muir Russell inquiry ruled on this issue without actually citing IPCC procedures…Instead of examining IPCC rules, they asked John Mitchell, the Review Editor, for his opinion. Mitchell, needless to say, was a Climategate correspondent, who gave untruthful answers when refusing David Holland's FOI request for materials' [...]