Previously I have said this about the lack of integrity regarding the recent Climategate investigations:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
Now from Bishop Hill we learn that it appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review. So let me amend what I said above:
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a “fair sample”, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
This entire mess is snowballing again with UEA, CRU, and Dr. Jones right at the center again.
Details here at Bishop Hill who writes:
Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees – we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was…Phil Jones.
Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one’s objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? “You’ve picked all my bad papers”? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative.
Gobsmacked I am, surprised I am not.
Sponsored IT training links:
If want to pass 640-816 exam for your career sake then try out the 70-647 dumps with 650-568 practice exam to pass your exam on time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good grief! It’s worse than we thought.
This seems to be beyond whitewash and moving to fraudulent behavior by the review panel.
Gaia better not hear about this. The Brits already suffered enough last winter.
Time to refresh the literature on my office door, to silence those who are using the Climategate
investigationswhitewashes to argue with me again. Wow!This is somewgat unbelievable, even from these characters
How sweet: an inquiry where the defendant gets to determine beforehand exactly what pieces of evidence may be presented at his trial.
Al Capone would have loved this arrangement!
What a fascinating concept to include in the field of jurisprudence. That would be like a murderer not allowing the introduction into evidence of the gun with which he committed the crime or the eyewitness who saw him at the crime scene pulling the trigger.
My only surprise is that the good Bishop was able to get his hands on the information at all. These “independent inquiries” were nothing more than freak shows. It’s time, and past time, for Parliament and Congress to initiate serious, thorough, transparent and scrupulous investigations.
Much more worse than we thought!!!
Ecotretas
In Mann’s victory speech, he referred to Mother Nature. Hope she doesn’t hear about this.
No wonder at one point Phil Jones was contemplating suicide. Now that his modus operandi has been firmly established for everybody to see, has that consideration passed? Heaven forbid he should ever have to withstand firm and equitable inquiry!
/sarcasm off…
This spiral flame-out with an inevitable crash at the bottom can only be their own fault. Much as I anticipated it last November, the scene is still excruciating to watch.
Sigh, I was very cynical about these investigations to begin with but I never imagined something this………….stupid. Who made the decision to ask Phil for a fair representation of his work? Who thought his response would be valid? Why did they believe simply redacting his name would prevent people from finding out?
The funny part about this situation is, noting the board was full of academics, isn’t this an objective reflection of intelligence (or lack thereof) in academia? And they’re going to try and convince me they know how to read a thermometer? Simply astounding.
If this report about the Oxburgh inquiry is true, it’s now obvious that the fix was in … and the game is up.
The irony
A man accused of lying, cheating, and dishonesty…
…is asked to give his honest opinion
what is the process in Britain to remove the title from a “Lord” ?
Never mind, Exxon Mobil gave 1 million dollars to a climate skeptics conference, don’t you know…
The ‘Climate Establishment’ in Britain closed ranks to protect their own. However, they thought it best not to do so publicly. They thought they could get away with it – quiet behind-the-scenes manipulation and subtle steering here and there. Now it is coming back to bite them.
This is exactly why they despise the AG investigation in Virginia. The school is stubborn and claims they do not have to provide evidence. They call it a witch hunt.
All memos, correspondence, writings, files, documents are requested.
Jones got to filter requests for production. How convenient.
Jones appears to be crooked.
I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1….
If they were trading stocks or bonds, the SEC would already have them in jail for inside trading. This is beyond shameful, it’s insulting to the intelligence of everyone outside their clique of supermen.
@manfred
I believe hanging the soon to be ex-peer by a silken rope is the preferred method.
“Gobsmacked”? ROFL
There are definitely a few ‘investigators’ who ought to be smacked up alongside the head.
Jeez. If I wasn’t such a self-deluding, self-aggrandising AGWarmist, I might think these people had something to hide.
BUT SERIOUSLY.
Come on pro-warmers, I’m sure we’d all love to hear what you have to say about this. What? Cat got your tongues?
This is a good point at which to recall the detailed and erudite thoughts on the Oxburgh Inquiry expressed by Judith Curry:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/
“Internal investigation” is a misnomer. An oxymoron. A double negative. And our pejorative for a real investigation.