Tomorrow (15 January 2013), the Information Tribunal will hear David Holland’s appeal of the ICO decision (FER0387012 ) regarding the connection of the Muir Russell Review and UEA in respect to FOI legislation (see FOI correspondence here.) Both Muir Russell and UEA Vice Chancellor Acton are scheduled to appear. The hearing is at Court Room […]
Tag Archives: Holland
David Holland, in a guest post at Bishop Hill, shows that Climategate 2.0 has provided more context on Phil Jones’ efforts to organize the deletion of documents.
When David Holland sought information from the University of East Anglia on their contract with Muir Russell, they refused (see CA here) The University does not consider that there was a contractual relationship with Sir Muir Russell or the inquiry team; it was by way of a public appointment (as is commonplace in these circumstances). […]
In the University of East Anglia’s recent refusal of David Holland’s FOI request for documents received by IPCC Lead Author Tim Osborn pertaining to the October 2010 IPCC meeting, the University refused many items, stating that they had received “representations from the IPCC itself in which it objected to the release of some of the […]
In December 2009, Acton sent Muir Russell an email agreeing that Muir Russell would lead the inquiry. The language of the email is not definitive, but gives the impression that a budget of £ 40,000 was contemplated. (Excerpt below, see link for “full” agreement.) As noted in correspondence on the earlier thread, Acton referred to […]
Apparently the U of East Anglia paid the Muir Russell inquiry nearly £300,000. David Holland has requested information on the contractual basis of these payments. Situation normal – the UEA has refused to provide the information and it looks like another appeal to the ICO. .
Interesting new light on the Boultonization of Holland’s submission to Muir Russell at Bishop Hill (here). Muir Russell’s first statement upon being appointed to look into CRU was: Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the University or the Climate Science community looks at the […]
I doubt that many inquiries are provided with documents in which the subject of the inquiry not only asks subordinates to delete documents subject to an FOI request, but also states in writing that he expects a subordinate to give an untrue statement to an official. And even rarer that an inquiry would not clarify […]
Last year, we noted the insolent and unresponsive answers by IPCC chapter 6 Lead Authors to Review Comments in connection with the Hockey Stick reconstructions. Under IPCC policies, Review Editors have important obligations to ensure responsiveness of Chapter Authors (see policies discussed here). The comments by Review Editors were not put online by IPCC, but, […]
David Holland’s FOI request for the Review Comments on IPCC AR4 Chapter 6 (Paleoclimate) has been successful, leading to David obtaining the comments, such as they are, which have now been placed online at CA here (though not yet at IPCC.) David Holland’s request was noted up here; last year, we noted the appalling response […]