Comments on: The Botched Examination of the Back-Up Server http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/ by Steve McIntyre Mon, 20 May 2013 20:19:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Was there an actual legal opinion? « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-246311 Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:28:21 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-246311 [...] the following statement by the Muir Russell “inquiry” – a topic previously discussed here with further information provided [...]

]]> By: David http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235797 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:29:50 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235797 This investigation was doomed to failure even if unbiased.

The investigators lacked the skill, legal authority, time and resources to conduct a proper investigation. It was a fiasco.

]]> By: Does the Latest Climategate Investigation Exonerate the Scientists Involved? | The Beacon http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235631 Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:56:34 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235631 [...] The investigative panel did not review the vast majority of the emails. (“The Botched Examination of the Back-Up Server“) [...]

]]> By: mojo http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235540 Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:18:23 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235540 I find it interesting that they refer to CRUBACK3 as “the compromised server” – is there ANY evidence of compromise?

]]> By: Richard T. Fowler http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235412 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:39:36 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235412 All right then, how about a “Sham-Wow”?

Did those get advertized in the Commonwealth?

RTF

]]> By: ZT http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235185 Mon, 12 Jul 2010 03:17:48 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235185 Interesting how the foundations need to be shifted early and often to prove the warming case. (Stephen Colbert calls this ‘Truthiness’.)

There is a similarly interesting piece of Real Climate dedicated to positioning Amazongate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/leakegate-a-retraction/

A knowledgeable person called oneuniverse takes on the education of Real Climate regulars (dhogaza et al) in the comments – with limited success.

I wonder if the RC article will be updated…?

]]> By: William Newman http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235171 Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:45:23 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235171 I dimly remembered that RealClimate was once quite concerned about how misleading CRU emails might be taken out of context. A bit of search confirms:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

That makes it particularly amusing that now, in a RealClimate writeup of the Muir Russell investigation, it’s not worth mentioning that the investigation looked at only the emails that the public already knew about:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/

]]> By: TonyN http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235167 Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:11:18 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235167 Re: Geoff Sherrington (Jul 11 06:55),

Thanks. Reply, which would be OT here, here.

]]> By: Lucy Skywalker http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235149 Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:24:33 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235149 Re: Geoff Sherrington (Jul 11 06:55),
It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about.

CA
He Who Must Not Be Named in Full
He Who Must Not Be Contacted
He Who Must Not Be Believed
He Who Must Not Be Read
He Who Must Not Be Consulted
He Who Has No Right to FOIA access

]]> By: Atomic Hairdryer http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/#comment-235134 Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:34:14 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=11414#comment-235134 I don’t think so. There’s a good example of this with the decision notice for David Holland’s complaint here:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0238017.pdf

“The complainant made a number of requests for information related to the involvement of some of the public authority’s staff in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Commissioner has found that the public authority breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to provide a response to a request within 20 working days and breached regulation 5(2) by failing to provide a response to other requests.”

The ICO doesn’t name individuals, but can still find fault as it did in this example.

]]>