If the Team had any really substantive rebuttal of Steve’s position, they would already have posted it.

Odd for something of such little insignificance, innit?

In this post, I used term “grant-seeking”. Schmidt referred to this sentence using the phrase “grant-grubbing”.

One of his readers looked at the post and now accuses me of changing the post:

It appears as if this is now changed to ‘grant-seeking’ in the post, a correcting not acknowledged with cross-outs.

Dude, the post is unchanged. Ask Gavin why he pretended to quote a word that I didn’t use.

I actually do not think this is too far fetched, at least as far as the long term financial health of the UEA/CRU is concerned.

Eventual revelation and actual evidence of the highly significant effects of their data exclusion and selection activities, this time published with actual corroborative fact, may cause some grant givers to pause and think what they have been/are supporting.

“Do we want to support this bunch for always” they might say!

Incidentally a comparison of grants awarded since and before climategate might already be quite revealing!

Iain McQueen

“For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that (…) the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data”

Steve: I guess it depends on what the meaning of “finished” is. And what the meaning of “used” is. I think that academics may have somewhat difference ideas of what these mean than other people. I think that I’ll write this up in more detail.

“Much of the present problem arises from the dissembling Muir Russell “inquiry”, which should have dealt with all of this, but negligently failed to do so.”

It should read “but diligently failed to do so.”

Muir Russell is much more about conspiracy than incompetence