UK MP Graham Stringer has a strongly worded Op Ed here. (h/t Bishop Hill) Stringer, who is on the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, described the Oxburgh “inquiry” as follows: The Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia seemed to share Deer’s desire to get at the truth when he announced an independent […]
Tag Archives: muir russell
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. .
New report from the UK Sci Tech Committee. (I’m traveling – see Bishop Hill for link.) My take is that the Committee was annoyed with the University of East Anglia, being quite critical of the inquiries in the running text, but have decided that there are other more pressing priorities and that it’s time to […]
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 […]
For some time, we’ve commented on the unbelievably obtusely untrue “finding” of the Muir Russell “inquiry” that Jones’ request that Briffa and Wahl delete any records of their 2006 correspondence – correspondence described by Fred Pearce as a “subversion” of IPCC procedures – had not been preceded by an FOI request, even though David Holland […]
Muir Russell told the Sci Tech Committee that the Muir Russell panel “fully investigated” the allegations about the Chinese network of Jones et al 1990. This was totally untrue. Not only did Muir Russell panel fail to “fully” investigate, as was the case on too many other issues, Muir Russell didn’t investigate at all. In […]
It is almost impossible to fully dissect the negligence of the Muir Russell inquiry in virtually every aspect of its duties. Muir Russell told the Parliamentary Committee that he didn’t ask Jones (or anyone else) about email deletions since that would in effect be asking them to confess to a crime. If their ‘rigour and […]
At the hearings yesterday, after being stonewalled by Muir Russell about Muir Russell’s refusal to investigate Jones’ delete-all-email request, Stringer turned his attention to Acton, who claimed that he had carried out his own investigation, the results of which were on the UEA website. Here is a rough transcript: Stringer – … Prof Acton, are […]
It turns out that Muir Russell didn’t bother asking, since that would have exposed Jones to potential liability.