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 has written in raising an excellent point about the failure of IPCC WG1 to release the Review Editor comments. In our examination of specific issues e.g. the Briffa truncation, the handling of trends, etc., the Author Responses (online through an earlier CA initiative) show that the IPCC authors often made unconvincing and tendentious [...]
