“The university at the centre of a climate change row today appointed a former civil servant to head an inquiry into claims of misconduct by its scientists. ”

Was there any real doubt that this was a university appointed body that was set up to provide a white-wash? The Times seemed to be under that impression right from the start. I am not sure that there was ever much of an attempt to hide the fact (or at least not one that was very effective). Maybe outside of the UK it seemed different?

what appears to be the original Russell – Acton email (the reply to which you mention in your post) was disclosed as part of the response to an FOI request from David Holland. It’s dated 2 December 2009, timed 09.02. Interestingly, at point 5, Muir says that he can probably find 15 – 20 days for the work. A bit further on, he suggests a daily fee of “something in the region of” £1,500 (probably expecting to be knocked down a bit). This implies a total fee of £22,500 – £30,000 for the job. Nevertheless, and in direct response to MR’s fee quote, Acton offers an uplift to £40,000. Bizarre! Who ever got a quote from a contractor but then offered a third more than the upper limit suggested by the contractor???? Wonder what the University’s fianncial regulations say about paying 133% of a quoted price? Presumably, such a practice is to be discouraged in order to avoid accusations of buying favours.

The email is in the document “Russell-Acton_091202_red”, which itself is in a folder called “Acton-Russell correspondence final” in the 9.6MB zip file at this link:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/communications_between_uea_russe#comment-19041

re Nick Stokes assertion that one would not be required to track down books you loaned, try this one. Your files need organizing, so you pack them up and take them to an independent secretarial service who gets them in shape. Now you get an FOIA request for them. You can not claim you “don’t have them” just because they are in the possession of a private contractor. You are still the owner and need to retrieve them. Just so with the UEA and Muir Russell panel materials.

MM is not going to get away from the truth being found out.

A variant on your lawnmower analogy – suppose you get a FOI request for any book you have that mentions Michael Mann. Well, you look through your bookshelves. But do you have to chase up every book you have ever lent?

This is actually happening with MM. I’m sure he took lots of things to PSU that your test would say are owned by UVa (eg copies of emails). But no-one (not even Cucci) seems to think they are subject to Va FOI or CIDs.