It is almost impossible to fully dissect the negligence of the Muir Russell inquiry in virtually every aspect of its duties. Muir Russell told the Parliamentary Committee that he didn’t ask Jones (or anyone else) about email deletions since that would in effect be asking them to confess to a crime. If their ‘rigour and […]
At the hearings yesterday, after being stonewalled by Muir Russell about Muir Russell’s refusal to investigate Jones’ delete-all-email request, Stringer turned his attention to Acton, who claimed that he had carried out his own investigation, the results of which were on the UEA website. Here is a rough transcript: Stringer – … Prof Acton, are […]
Stringer (at about 9.53) observed: A lot of the papers that the controversy was about – the multiproxy papers – were not included. Trevor Davies answered: I will dispute that. Trevor Davies then proceeded to make a lengthy statement that did not, in fact, contradict Stringer’s point that the multiproxy papers in the most controversy […]
It turns out that Muir Russell didn’t bother asking, since that would have exposed Jones to potential liability.
We’ve all had an interesting time trying to get a straight answer as to the eleven publications said by Oxburgh to have been selected on the advice of the Royal Society. After much evasion, Trevor Davies has admitted that he selected them, using the references in the CRU submission to the SciTech Committee as a […]
9.20 am UK time. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6785 Beddington is also appearing. Too early for me. I guess that I’ll see the replay. Update: Report webpage Muir Russell evidence Oxburgh evidence Report Additional evidence
Muir Russell reported Briffa’s claim that “Wahl was asked for comment on text as a knowledgeable and objective arbiter”. The indolent Muir Russell did not comment on whether Briffa’s description of Wahl as “objective” was plausible. In a Climategate letter of July 27, 2006, Wahl wrote to Briffa (733. 1155402164.txt): I’ve also been a lot […]
One of my long-standing concerns of Climate Audit and its readers has been a concern over the role of Eugene Wahl in changing the IPCC assessment of the McMc-Mann dispute in the Final Report – a role that Fred Pearce described in The Climate Files as a “subversion” of IPCC policies of openness and transparency. […]
In preparation for his appearance at the SciTech Committee, Muir Russell has, at the last possible minute, attempted to cooper up his webpage by amending the list of FOI requests to include the David Holland FOI request for off-balance-sheet IPCC review comments that prompted Phil Jones’ notorious delete-all-emails request. Amazingly, this request had been left […]
Climate Audit 