Comments on: UEA and the Muir Russell Cooper Up

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:20:21 +0000

Subsequent to this post (and perhaps in response to it), UEA reported an Oct 25, 2010 email from Lisa Williams to Muir Russell on the eve of his appearance as follows:

Sir Muir
I didn’t receive anything else from you on this but I see that the updated list is now up on your website, thank you.
http://www.cce-review.org/Evidence.php
Whilst it doesn’t indicate that the revised list was received by the Review team some months ago, I trust that can be explained if need be.
Best,
Lisa

By: Jeff Alberts

Jeff Alberts — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:44:25 +0000

I’m waiting for a post entitled “The Ghost and Mr. Muir-Russel”…

By: DEEBEE

DEEBEE — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:08:09 +0000

This not even germane. The process under discussion is patently not a court proceeding. To continue to use that as a touchstone does not say much about your analytical ability.

By: Brian H

Brian H — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:28:42 +0000

Lurve it! Definitional plasticity is SO useful!

By: Manfred

Manfred — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:11:30 +0000

There are a couple of points as I see from my perspective:

- This is a written document and proof, that the university under investigation not only advised Muir Russel in this inquiry against their staff but even provided very important wording.

- This particular incidence is of special interest in its IPCC context but moreover because there is prima face evidence of breaking a UK law.

- Making untrue statements about an unlawful act may be unlawful in itself. I also do not see how this and the 1st point above would be compatible with codes of conduct at Universities such as Edinburgh, Heidelberg or other scientific communities such as the Royal Society.

By: ZT

ZT — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:10:26 +0000

i.e. “Muir’s trick, to hide the define.” (as proposed by Richard Drake at Bishop Hills).

By: theduke

theduke — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:18:28 +0000

Henceforth to be referred to as “Muir’s trick.”

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:02:07 +0000

How McIntyre mistakes are made, by presuming some upper bound to tricks in climate science and its supporting infrastructure of inquiry. The complaint that sceptics are too suspicious is unfounded – it turns out we’re too credulous, the reality is worse than anyone expected.

By: TerryMN

TerryMN — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:39:44 +0000

Hand. Cookie jar. Caught.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/11/24/holland-what-was-redacted.html

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:29:03 +0000

I edited one paragraph of this post to more accurately reflect the timeline. When I started writing the post, I had presumed that Muir Russell would not have engaged in the trick of altering his website after his testimony to the House Sci Tech Committee – particularly without dating the change. As I wrote the chronology in the post, it emerged that amazingly Muir Russell did in fact do so. I edited a sentence to remove an inconsistency between an opening paragraph and the conclusion.