UEA/CRU responds to Climategate "inquiries"

h/t to Bishop Hill who writes:

UEA has issued a response to the various inquiries. The timing is odd, to say the least. Perhaps they’ve all been on holiday.

See it here.

What he’s alluding to is unspoken rule number one in public relations: “If you have something you must announce but really don’t want many people to see it, announce it going into a weekend, or better yet a holiday weekend”.  Of course, here in the USA, where there is a keen interest in this issue, announcing going into Labor Day would be a good choice as it is the last big holiday of summer. And indeed, it seems to have worked well, because this Google News search on the terms “University East Anglia response climate emails” yields not a single news story about it.

So either UEA chose the date, or they are simply incompetent at public relations, or both. Given the ineptitudes seen from UEA so far in their dealing with the Climategate issue, I’ll go with incompetence.


UEA Logo

The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review – July 2010

Thu, 2 Sep 2010

University of East Anglia’s Response

1. The University is indebted to Sir Muir Russell and his team for conducting a comprehensive, thoughtful and challenging Review into the allegations which have been made against the University’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) following the publication of a large number of emails and other material, which are believed to have been obtained illegally from a back-up server in CRU.

2. The Review was conducted over a period of seven months and looked for evidence of manipulation or suppression of data by scientists in CRU or of manipulation of the peer review process, and addressed issues relating to compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) for the release of data and correspondence, and the governance and security structures for CRU.

3. The University welcomes Sir Muir’s approach to the Review, which invited any party, evidently including those who had levelled allegations through the media and the “blogosphere”, to make representations to it. The team was painstaking in its analysis and transparent in making all evidence it received, and the records of interviews conducted available on its website, other than where that would be defamatory or otherwise unlawful.

4. The University welcomes the findings that:

“On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”

“We do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”

5. These findings reflect those of other reviews and inquiries conducted both prior to and subsequent to the publication of the Review.

5.1 The Commons Science and Technology Committee (in March 2010), following its inquiry, stated that: “Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones in CRU remains intact”. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

5.2 Lord Oxburgh’s Scientific Assessment Panel reporting in April 2010 similarly found that: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it”. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP.

5.3 More recently the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its “Notice of Denial of the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases”. The EPA conducted a comprehensive review of a number of issues including the allegations which had arisen as a consequence of the publication of the emails and other material. The Denial of the Petitions and the accompanying volumes are a substantial body of evidence and careful analysis. The summary (Section A) of the Denial states inter alia “Petitioners … rely on an assumption of inaccuracy in the science … based on various statements and views expressed in some of the e-mail communications between scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia … and several other scientists…EPA’s careful examination of the e-mails … shows that the petitioners’ claims are exaggerated, are often contradicted by other evidence, and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of science … Inquiries from the UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, the University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel, the Pennsylvania State University, and the University of East Anglia, Russell Panel, … have examined the issues and many of the same allegations brought forward by the petitioners … These inquiries are now complete. Their conclusions are in line with EPA’s review and analysis of these same CRU e-mails. The inquiries have found no evidence of scientific misconduct or intentional data manipulation on the part of the climate researchers associated with the CRU e-mails … These inquiries lend further credence to EPA’s conclusion that petitioners’ claims that the CRU e-mails show the underlying science cannot or should not be trusted are exaggerated and unsupported”. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/decision.html#I-A

6. The Review expresses a number of concerns and raises broader issues, but is critical of the University and CRU in aspects of its adherence to the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR. The University accepts the criticisms levelled by the Review and values the many recommendations of the report for improvements in the processes for dealing with FoIA and EIR requests and will seek to implement them fully. The University accepts that an apparent reluctance to provide access to data gave the impression that CRU was attempting to hide issues relating to its science. Clearly the conclusions of the Review are that there was nothing to hide, which underscores the point that the interests of CRU, the University and the dissemination of its research would have been best served by a more proactively helpful response to requests for information relating to data used for CRU’s published analyses.

7. The University is collaborating in two significant activities arising from the issues raised in paragraph 6 above. Firstly, while the University is already undertaking a number of steps to improve engagement with FoIA/EIR, a senior team led by the Vice-Chancellor will be meeting with the Information Commissioner and his colleagues to review the University’s processes and to seek guidance as to additional improvements which may be necessary. Secondly, CRU, in partnership with the Science and Technology Facilities Council E-Science Centre is embarking on a Joint Information Systems Committee funded project. This will examine how best to provide standardised access to processed climate data, linked both to raw observations and meaningful descriptions of intermediate processing. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2010/07/data.aspx

8. In the following paragraphs we paraphrase and summarise the key, more detailed, findings and recommendations of the Review and, where appropriate, add a comment in italics. References to the Review are shown as (page, paragraph).

Scientific integrity

9. The Review’s further comments on the robustness and transparency of the research of CRU are welcome.

Land Station Temperatures

9.1 CRU was not in a position to deny anybody access to temperature data. The team demonstrated that anyone could download station data, directly from primary sources, and construct a temperature trend analysis that agreed very well with that produced by CRU. This was an invaluable and instructive contribution to refuting allegations made against CRU that data was withheld as a barrier to challenge. (53,6.7)

9.2 The Review team demonstrated that its analysis of the temperature trend remained largely consistent regardless of stations selected and the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. CRU had not manipulated its selection of station data or its analysis to achieve a pre-determined outcome to show a rise in global temperatures. (53, 6.7)

Temperature Reconstruction from Tree Ring Analysis

9.3 There was no evidence that past temperature data as derived from tree ring proxies was misleading, nor was there evidence in IPCC AR4 of the exclusion of other temperature reconstructions that would show a different picture. The extent of the uncertainties surrounding such past temperature reconstructions were extensively covered in AR4, including the divergence of tree ring proxies from instrumental records in more recent times. (59, 21)

9.4 CRU did not withhold underlying raw data, having directed the single request for information to the owners of that data. (61,29)

Peer Review and Editorial Policy

9.5 There was no direct evidence of subversion of the peer review or editorial process. (68,18)

Misuse of the IPCC process

9.6 Allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, could not be substantiated. CRU researchers were part of a large group of scientists taking responsibility for the AR4 text, and were not in a position to determine the content. (13, 26)

Disclosure of data and correspondence

10. The Review is critical of the handling of requests for disclosure of data and other material, and also makes a number of recommendations to the University.

Land Station Temperatures

10.1 CRU should have made available an unambiguous list of the stations used in the construction of its land temperature record at the time of publication. We accept that the University was slow in providing this data when requested. (51, 32)

Temperature Reconstruction from Tree Ring Analysis

10.2 The figure of trends in land temperatures supplied for the WMO report, whilst not misleading per se in splicing past temperature reconstructions and modern day temperature records, did not clearly describe the mechanisms used in the construction of the figure in the caption. The University would comment that the figure was an illustration for the cover of the report and additional explanation was supplied on the inside cover and in the text. (13, 23)

10.3 There was a delay in archiving tree ring data by its owners. The University will, as part of a wider protocol documenting the agreements over the use of data provided by others, promote the benefits of such data being archived and accessible. In some instances, however, this will not be achievable, particularly where the commercial interests of the owners come into play. (62, 38)

FoIA/EIR

10.4 While the University had widely distributed initial guidance on the introduction of the FoIA/EIR regimes, there was evident confusion within CRU as to how these should be applied, for example, to data, codes and personal correspondence. There was insufficient priority given to motivating staff and continuing their education in this respect. Senior staff need to make clear their commitment to transparency and to resourcing the process. The University accepts that all staff from the top down must be better engaged with the FoIA/EIR regimes. The University has already begun a programme of further training with awareness raising for senior staff. The Vice-Chancellor has written to all staff to underline UEA’s commitment to this. All new staff will receive a written statement concerning responsibilities under the FoIA/EIR together with annual updates. All staff with a particular role in the implementation of FoIA/EIR (recognising the general obligation of all colleagues) will attend annual workshops to update their knowledge. A programme specifically for staff closely involved with EIR will be mounted. The resources available to the FoIA team have been increased. (91, 25 and 91, 33)

10.5 There was a failure to recognise the extent to which more careful engagement with requesters would have been both appropriate and helpful to avoid fuelling the fire of suspicion. We fully accept this criticism and our various steps referred to in this response seek to address it. (91, 26)

10.6 There was a tendency to give unhelpful responses: failing to address the question asked or giving partial answers. There was extensive delay in providing details of those station identifiers which were not the subject of confidentiality agreements. Again, we accept the University could have performed much better in responding to these requests and steps are being taken to address this. (91, 27)

10.7 A number of emails appeared to incite deletion or evidence deletion of other emails, although there was no evidence of emails being deleted that were the subject of a request for disclosure. We accept this shows insufficient awareness of and focus on obligations under the FoIA/EIR, but we welcome the finding that there was no attempt to delete information with respect to a request already made. This confirms assurances already given to the Vice-Chancellor by colleagues in CRU that they had not deleted material which was the subject of a request. We have underlined that such action would have been one of the key elements necessary to constitute an offence under Section 77 of the FoIA and Section 19 of the EIR, the others being that information had actually been deleted, that it was deleted with the intention to avoid disclosure and that it was disclosable and not exempt information. Professor Jones has commented that, while emails are cleared out from time to time, this is to keep accounts manageable and within the allocated storage. (92, 28)

10.8 There is an imbalance of authority between the Information Policy and Compliance Manager (IPCM) and senior academic staff holding information which may be the subject of a request for disclosure. There is also a lack of constructive challenge in the appeals processes. The University has amended its protocols to allow the Director of Information Services and the Registrar to become involved at an early stage in the consideration of sensitive cases and for reviews of any decisions not to disclose information then to be undertaken by others at a senior level in the University. These changes are being formalised in a revised code of practice. (93, 29 and 93, 30)

10.9 There is a lack of understanding of the presence of long-duration back-ups of email which, had it been stronger, would have led to a greater challenge of assertions regarding the availability of material. We accept this, albeit, as is recognised in the Information Commissioner’s guidance, retrieving such data may not always be a practical option. (93, 31)

10.10 There was a fundamental lack of engagement by the CRU team with their obligations under FoIA/EIR. CRU is now more clearly integrated within the management and administrative structures of the School of Environmental Sciences, and the Head of School will take greater responsibility for compliance with FOIA/EIR requirements. The University also has undertakings from the Director of Research (Professor Jones) of necessary improvements in this regard in the future. (93, 32)

Broader issues

11. The Review identifies a number of broader issues which are a valuable commentary on the process of scientific debate, both generally and in the particular instance of climate science:

11.1 Much of the challenge to CRU’s work has not followed the conventional method of checking and seeking to falsify conclusions or offering alternative hypothesis for peer review and publication. Again, the Review has been invaluable in demonstrating that the great bulk of the temperature data used by CRU was already readily available and that there was no barrier to checking or seeking to offer alternative hypotheses compatible with the data. Attempts simply to taint the science with the content of email exchanges are not the appropriate way to probe or challenge the conclusions (15, 35 and 15, 36)

11.2 The scientific community must learn to communicate its work in ways that recognise the emergence of the blogosphere and non-traditional scientific dialogue. That this provides an opportunity for unmoderated comment, for challenge without inhibition and for highly personalised critiques of individuals and their work to be promulgated without hindrance is a point well taken. The University accepts this is a necessary but challenging task. (14, 31 and 15, 33)

11.3 The research community must establish very clearly the requirements of funders for the release of data and its archiving, and the associated costs. We agree, noting that these requirements should be proportionate to the likely wider value and importance of the data. (104, 36)

11.4 It is important for policy makers and lobbyists to understand the limits on what science can say and with what degree of confidence. Alternative viewpoints should be recognised in policy presentations, with a robust assessment of their validity, but challenges should always be rooted in science rather than in rhetoric. The University fully endorses this observation. Challenges to science should come through peer review publication substantiating the alternative; not through criticism of emails which, as the Review states, are rarely definitive evidence of what actually occurred. (14, 32)

11.5 While Peer Review is an essential part of the process of judging scientific work, it is not a guarantee of the validity of the individual pieces of research, and the significance of challenge to individual publication decisions should not be exaggerated. We agree with the Review that robust challenges to the publication of research which experts believe, in good faith, does not meet the standards required is commonplace and should not be dismissed as an attempt to “silence” critics. (15, 33)

Sector wide issues

12. The Review raises a number of issues which require a sector-wide debate, and engagement between the representative bodies and the ICO. The University strongly supports this approach and will seek to promote further consideration of these important issues through Universities UK, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and other bodies.

12.1 Raw data, meta-data and codes necessary to allow independent replication of results should be provided concurrent with peer reviewed publication. However, so far as preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research, peer reviews and communications with colleagues are concerned, the American approach, where these are exempt from disclosure, is one which is worthy of consideration. (94, 34)

12.2 CRU was the subject of an orchestrated campaign of FoIA/EIR requests, and while more positive engagement by CRU would have mitigated this, conceivably there are situations where such campaigns could recur and overwhelm any small research unit. The ICO is urged to provide guidance on how best to respond to such campaigns. (95, 34)

12.3 The ICO could produce further guidance as to how long it is reasonable to retain data without releasing it, pending full publication as part of a peer reviewed paper. We agree that this is an important concern. The many benefits of publication are set out elsewhere in this response. Nonetheless data sets, carefully assembled, may result in a number of publications for an individual, the very foundation on which a scientific reputation is built. For how long is it reasonable for an individual to have their intellectual investment protected? (95, 34)

12.4 There should be a standardised way of defining station data and meta-data, and for publishing a snapshot of the data used for each important publication. We will discuss with the WMO but this will not be a trivial undertaking. (53, 40)

12.5 The storage of important research data, and the associated meta-data which make that data useful, should be specified by those funding research and there should be a clear statement as to which data should be placed in the public domain and any constraints on the timing of its release. (104, 36)

Governance

13. The Review makes a number of recommendations to the University on risk management and on the storage and security of data.

13.1 The University was insufficiently alert to the implications of the external attitudes which existed towards the work of CRU and of the attention of external pressure groups, and mitigation measures should be put in place. Greater CRU security, a bias for openness and a properly resourced policy on data management and availability should have resulted. The University will undertake a Faculty-based risk assessment of all areas of the University’s research; implement more centralised IT support to ensure appropriate security levels; and develop processes which ensure that senior management are informed of emerging problems in a timely fashion. The University will participate (with others) in projects to improve the storage of and access to research data both specifically in respect of climate data and more generally. (103, 33)

13.2 Universities should develop formal approaches to the training of researchers in basic software development methodologies and best practice. We shall consider the development of a programme of workshops for researchers in appropriate disciplines. (103, 34)

13.3 There should be a formal approach to storage and archiving of meta-data where a university is hosting a unit of such international significance as CRU. We agree and have successfully bid for grant funding to support a project for our three principal data sets. It is anticipated that the results of this project will provide an exemplar for climate researchers, including those outside UEA. (103, 35)

13.4 At the point of publication of research, enough information should be available for others to reconstruct the process of analysis, including the source code. The University accepts this should be the case, unless valuable intellectual property or other commercial constraints are in play. (104, 37)

13.5 Where the University establishes a framework and standards in areas such as information systems but allows local interpretation, this should be subject to robust audit. The University is centralising the control of IT systems and intends to reduce the level of discretion of research groups and others for the control and management of IT. Adherence to overall policies will be part of the future programme of internal audit. (104, 38)

Updating

14. The University will update this document as the steps set out in the body of the document are progressed.

Advertisements

115 thoughts on “UEA/CRU responds to Climategate "inquiries"

  1. Well the whitewash has been set, but now at least the temp curves can start to bend down again, leaving the “hump” as a lasting memorial to an inglorious period in climate science history.

  2. Well there is one fly still in the UEA/CRU ointment:

    The Science and Technology Committee will hold an oral evidence session following-up to the previous committee’s report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
    The session will be on Wednesday 8 September 2010 at 10.30 am in the Thatcher Room, Portcullis House.
    The Committee will take evidence from Lord Oxburgh, who headed the International Panel that was set up by the University of East Anglia to assess the integrity of the research published by the Climatic Research Unit.
    The session will focus on how the review responded to the former committee’s recommendations about the review and how it carried out its work.
    Watch the meeting live: Parliament TV
    Report: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (PDF)
    An oral evidence session with Sir Muir Russell, who headed the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, will be announced in October.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/100931-uea-ev-session/

  3. UEA, like the rest of the planet outside the US, don’t even know Labor Day happens. It will not have entered into their consciousness.

  4. It is not clear to me as to why the parliamentary committee is holding public hearings to review these reports.
    Is this standard procedure, or did someone specifically request the review? If so, who and why?
    ‘The session will focus on how the review responded to the former committee’s recommendations about the review and how it carried out its work.”
    Is someone questioning the outcomes or the inquiries’ failure to adhere to the original mandate as set out by the committee?

  5. Sir Muir Russell was rewarded most handsomely for his “efforts” for chairing this investigation.
    “5 Sep 2010
    A former civil servant criticised for his role in the Holyrood Parliament building fiasco has pocketed £40,000 for chairing an inquiry into the recent climate change row.
    Sir Muir Russell walked away with nearly £6000 a month for leading a probe which cleared scientists at the University of East Anglia of data manipulation.”
    (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/holyrood-fiasco-peer-s-40k-for-chairing-climategate-review-1.1052947)
    In the article linked above details are given of other monies paid to this charlatan. The comment “Follow the money” has a strong bearing on the report which Russell eventually produced.

  6. Political Junkie says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:35 am

    I’m going to guess you didn’t read this when it came out two months ago:

    Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP
    Russell report is inadequate, says Stringer
    Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry. Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations. This is a serious charge.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/

  7. I look forward to the opinion of Christopher Moncton regarding this “inquiry”. I trust him.
    I don’t trust Sir Muir Russell.

  8. John
    UEA/CRU is a public institution. The public is paying for the grants to the public institution. The public is paying for all the arrogance.
    They still think they can hide their work from the public after the public paid for it. I encourage them to keep trying to defend that un-defendable position. It will hasten UEA/CRU descent into even lower depths of academic shame and irrelevance.
    John

  9. The three UK inquiries were whitewashes, and this is only a summary of the whitewashes.
    Why is this news?

  10. The UEA is indebted to Sir Muir Russel … obviously they haven’t paid his consultants fee!
    Like all management consultants, Sir Muir Russel simply produced the report he was paid to produce and sent in his invoice.

  11. To understand how much of a whitewash is was you should look at how Harvard handled one of its top researcher’s misconduct. Simply go to Google news and search for “Marc Hauser” and read any of the many stories. He was basically found guilty of a monkey not turning its head the way he said it did. All Harvard did was listen to the students’ complaint and then looked at the science.
    It makes for a good comparison.

  12. Back in the 1980’s, I was contacted by a political friend…with a DYNAMITE letter which had been sent to all the operatives of the Nebraska Education Association.
    I was living in Omaha NEB at the time (now 25 years and many many miles removed from there..) The letter outlined in GREAT DETAIL the goals that the “Nuclear Freeze” movement wished to accomplish through the teachers under the NEA.
    My friend asked me to present copies of the letter to the Omaha School Board, with an inquiry as to whether such a connection was legitimate and whether the teachers could promote “causes” such as this on school time, and in the ways outlined in the letter.
    To the credit of the Omaha School Board members, to a man/woman they all reacted startled and (mind you this was WELL before the “shout from the rooftops” era of the Internet). As I was leaving the “board room” after my presentation, I was “accosted” by a florid faced man, who was “quite aggitated”. He identified himself as the NEA representative at the school board meetings. “If you had a problem with that letter, why didn’t you come to us?”
    I turned to my political friend and said, “Do I LOOK stupid?” He laughed, and said..”What Nuclear Engineer (I’m not, it’s a confusion as I worked in nuclear power and had engineering degrees, not in nuclear per see), professional singer, and speaks two languages?? Nah, maybe it’s your tie?” I then said, as dead level and without trace of emotion as I could, “Sir, taking this to you and your group for ‘resolution’ would be asking the FOX to guard the chicken coup.”
    We then walked off …leaving a speechless (yes, that was the result!) “Fox”, with no chickens to chew on.
    What I’m saying by this “feeble fable” is that amongst the LEFT, and the “Anointed” (as Thomas Sowell calls them) there IS NO SHAME, but their is a homogenity of thought and action which BAFFELS the mind. It makes claims of certain “religious” motivations look PALE in comparison in terms of the “sold heart and soul” which is demanded and freely given by those on the left, involved in various CAUSES!
    Max

  13. Previous posting: Clarification, the Omaha School Board DID produce a formal letter, minding the teachers of their obligation to “stick to the cirriculum” and that “advocacy” was not part of their job description. I’m sure there were violations of that,
    but in general the proper formalities had been achieved.
    Max

  14. For most schools in the UK. and universities..
    In has been the last day of the summer holidays, Mon/Tueday..
    ie allof UEA have been on hloiday, whilst the students have been off..

  15. Even calling the ‘inquiry’ independent is laughable. See, for example, the fact that the University decided that the inquiry could not look at email messages. As detailed here:
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/
    and here:
    http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Report%20on%20email%20extraction.pdf
    There are many additional sleights of hand by Acton et al. The MPs and taxpayers are clearly being played for fools.
    For an example of an academic organization (eventually) getting it roughly right, see:
    http://www.economist.com/node/16886218

  16. How much work did Sir Muir Russell actually do on the report?
    If you read the threads at CA it seems Prof Boulton, formerly of UEA and a climate change advocate did most of the interviewing. Russell merely turned up for the preliminaries.
    In other words he sold his ‘brand’, presumably his ‘Sir’, to UEA for £40,000. Would we could all do that!

  17. Such disgusting behaviour can only be sanctioned by closing this university. This should then be a sufficient warning to others to adhere to common, basic grounds of ethics in civilized societies in the future and will by no doubt benefit the British culture.

  18. And if you believe any of this, I would like to talk to you about a very nice bridge that I would like to sell you.
    Folks, do not be surprised or outraged by any of this. This is post-normal science exemplar. Roll with it.
    Ultimately Numbers talk and BS walks.
    All of the investigative committees , here in the UK and at Mann’s ‘university’ have come up with the same responses.
    Aside from being beyond parody, all fail to respond to the new real paradigm: All fail to deal with a world of instant comms, availabilty of data on the web and , ultimately, people with time, brains, connections and a desire to retain traditional scepticism and scientific method.
    Sure, they are in a war (that is how they see it), but they have come to a war of barbed wire and machine guns on horseback and dressed in red pantaloons….
    In short, they really dont understand the new paradigm. They still think that a gentle discussion between peers , over Sherry in a tutors room looking out over an Oxford Quadrangle* will nicely tidy everything up.
    * More likely a Corbuesier concrete bunker at the UAE these days…
    Truly, they really dont get it.
    But John Q. Public does. He can smell BS better than all the serried ranks of bearded professors.
    Just wait and watch it all fall quietly apart.

  19. boballab
    Maybe the Select Committee will ask UEA about the following statements included in the committee’s report under “Conclusions and Recommendations”
    The two inquiries
    21. The two reviews or inquiries need to map their activities to ensure that there are no unmanaged overlaps or gaps. If there are, the whole process could be undermined. (Paragraph 134)
    Conclusions
    24. A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.(Paragraph 138)
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38709.htm
    The last two sentences are worth repeating:-
    When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

  20. Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
    Dip, dip.
    White-wash, white-wash, white-wash.
    Here’s your $$ Mr. Tom Sawyer Russell.
    Nice paint job.
    Btw… this never happened.

  21. “10.9 There is a lack of understanding of the presence of long-duration back-ups of email which, had it been stronger, would have led to a greater challenge of assertions regarding the availability of material. We accept this, albeit, as is recognised in the Information Commissioner’s guidance, retrieving such data may not always be a practical option.
    Better insure that it *is* a practical option, laddie-buck — because as long as you take a single penny of the taxpayers’ money, it’s the *law*.

  22. Interesting that they can only go so far as:
    ‘which are believed to have been obtained illegally from a back-up server in CRU’, even after nine months investigation by our finest and brightest in Norfolk CID.
    Note that it doesn’t say ‘stolen’. ‘To obtain illegally’ and ‘to steal’ are very different things.
    No arrests made, no charges brought, no national manhunt for the alleged perpetrator. Not even a picture of a wanted crazed ‘denier’ on the mugshot section of Crimewatch (UK’s near equivalent of America’s Most Wanted). Not a dickie bird.
    I think we will never know who actually did it unless they confess. But there are only a small number of plausible suspects.
    Apropos of nothing at all, the lamentable Trevor Davies from UEA/CRU made great play about his duty as an employer to the health and well-being of his staff when at the Climategate debate. I wonder if he would classify being dragged off to chokey in irons as a Health and Safety risk. Just wondered if that explained anything.

  23. The most likely reason they issued it just now is because UK politicians just returned to work.
    There’s no way they could get away with issuing one in the ‘summer hols’, as we call it ‘silly season’ here, because the Press needs something stupid to write about as all the pols are on holiday. So they’d create a scandal out of it.
    No, they issued it now because there’s a concerted establishment attempt to try and sort this mess out.
    Whether they can or not is quite another matter.
    But in England, Establishment protocol is to whitewash, defend, deny, insult, threaten and anything else which maintains the official line.
    Which appears to be: CRU ain’t done nuthin’ wrong, buster……….

  24. Hmm, seems like they’re saying, “We didn’t do anything wrong and we won’t do it again.”
    I also find it sadly amusing that they invoked the EPA’s findings. The EPA simply rejected any arguments, they didn’t even pretend to be interested.
    Are they also asserting that editors that allowed skeptical studies in their journals losing their jobs after the e-mails explicitly state they were going after them is coincidental? And all the other examples mal intent? Have they not learned that this information will not go away?

  25. So, it is the funding agency fault for expecting East Anglia to act like a real scientific institution and release their data…blame the funders is a new strategy, a completely shameless one and the most novel thought to ever come from this tripe of a university.

  26. Boballab (11:53)
    I did see Graham Stringer’s earlier reaction to the reports.
    Was Stringer as an individual in a position to demand a review by the parliamentary committee, or did others also smell a rat?
    Or, who knows, perhaps they simply want to congratulate Oxburgh and Russell for their excellent work. Very little surprises me on this topic.

  27. Leon Brozyna says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:39 am
    Hmph
    That’s a mighty big shovel they’ve used.
    They needed a mighty big shovel to bury the mighty big pile of manure…

  28. David Waring says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
    “UEA, like the rest of the planet outside the US, don’t even know Labor Day happens. It will not have entered into their consciousness.”
    ========================================================
    They knew enough about the U.S. to know we handle FOI requests in a slightly different manner. They knew enough about the U.S. to invoke the EPA’s findings. It kinda implies they’re paying attention to what’s going on over here, wouldn’t you say?

  29. Political Junkie says:
    September 6, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Stringer for one is on the committee and if you had read the link I gave to the register article the former head of the committee labeled what UEA did a sleight of hand. Also Stringer would be doing just about anything else then congratulate Oxburgh

    Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the “sleight of hand”.
    “Oxburgh didn’t go as far as I expected. The Oxburgh Report looks much more like a whitewash,” Graham Stringer told us.

    Also it looks like he has some pull to get this convened when you read this from him:

    “I view this as a Parliamentarian for one of the poorest constituencies in the country. Putting up the price of fuel for poor people on such a low level of evidence, hoping it will have the desired effect, is not acceptable. I need to know what’s going on.”

  30. So its ok do make up data now, I might start some studies, I can prove that the sun is hollow now by making up results

  31. After all of the “investigations “, no one has asked or found out what was in the e-mails that Jones and his co-conspirators deleted about AR4.
    They did not ask Jones under oath, and there was no forensic examination of back-ups to see if the messages still existed.

  32. It does not matter how many dodgy inquiries the now discredited UEA set up, all one has to do is read the emails the truth lies there.
    Laird Russell of the Wash has many baubles on his way?
    Maybe the great Laird should change his name to Jim, to reflect a programme in the UK called Jim will fix it.

  33. Dear Anthony,
    To say that the UEA are incompetent at public relations is quite wrong. They want the whole embarrassing issue to go away and seem to have succeeded. For anyone who has lived in Britain for the last decade, burying of bad news; turning into something uninteresting; or even putting a positive spin, is nothing new.
    I am glad you have made a copy for posterity. If the UEA hold onto it as carefully as some of the data it may soon be unavailable.

  34. I read the link with DBD provided and read this, ” such as the mind-control chemicals that governments are allegedly spraying from commercial airliners”. read the link for context anyhow I would replace that with our not so neutral liberal education system.

  35. The University is indebted to Sir Muir Russell

    And the rest of the world, whether they know it or not, are indebted to the rebel who made the behaviour of these ‘scientists’ public.

  36. OT
    Steve McIntyre on BBC 4 – Part 2
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tmjb8
    In a special Radio 4 series the BBC’s Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin questions whether his own reporting – and that of others – has adequately told the whole story about global warming.
    Roger Harrabin has reported on the climate for almost thirty years off and on, but last November while working on the “Climategate” emails story, he was prompted to look again at the basics of climate science.
    He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have already contributed towards the heating of the climate , and will almost certainly heat the climate more.
    But he also finds that politicians and the media often fail to convey the huge uncertainty over the extent of future climate change. Whilst the great majority of scientists fear that computer models suggest we are facing potentially catastrophic warming, some climate scientists think the warming will be restricted to a tolerable 1C or 1.5C.
    At this crucial moment in global climate policy making, Harrabin talks to seminal characters in the climate change debate including Tony Blair, Lord Lawson, Professor Bob Watson, former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and the influential blogger Steve McIntyre.
    And he asks how political leaders make decisions on the basis of uncertain science.

  37. “So either UEA chose the date, or they are simply incompetent at public relations,”
    They appear to much more competent at PR than Climatology, but then that is no such a difficult task to accomplish.

  38. Boballab, yes we all know where Stringer stands.
    The question is; is he a lone voice to be drowned out by the rest of the committee who might not have a clue about what’s going on or an agenda to whitewash the whitewashes?

  39. AnonyMoose –
    apart frm Peter Thorne’s “”Currently at the national climate data centre, we are sitting on digital images that would take 20 full time staff nearly a century to key in”, the Telegraph made the release of data sound fairly imminent, but it appears it will take years and, of course, be homogenised :
    5 Sept: Nature: Rhiannon Smith: Making climate data free for all
    The workshop, to be held in Exeter on 7-9 September, will be hosted by Britain’s Met Office…
    “This workshop is an exercise in climate-science openness,” says Peter Thorne, a climate scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in Asheville, North Carolina, and chair of the workshop’s international organizing committee.
    Currently, there are glaring holes in land temperature measurements, with some regions and time periods severely lacking data. In some cases, measurements simply haven’t been taken, but often they are not readily accessible because the raw data have yet to be digitized.
    Data availability can also be limited for political and economic reasons…
    Collating land temperature data into a central bank will expose exactly where the information gaps are, the organizers say, potentially encouraging efforts to fill them….
    “This is such a terrific idea to me,” says John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “All of the data will be accessible, plus all of the expert information about where the [weather] stations were,” he adds….
    But creating the databank will be a formidable task. Before they can be deposited, data must be analysed and corrected to account for any long-term changes to the local environment around each measurement site, says Thorne. Working out how to homogenize the data will be a key topic of discussion at the workshop…
    Even if the workshop produces a framework for developing the database, Stott says that it will take years, and millions of dollars, to achieve: “It is a great challenge and will require international engagement.”
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100905/full/news.2010.448.html
    in other words, don’t hold your (CO2) breath…

  40. CRU statement – “We had a barrel of rotting fish – it leaked, but we got the painters in to give it a coat of whitewash and moved the barrel – It still stinks even with the new lid so we’ve re-branded the barrel as “Fertiliser” for our climate re-modeling department. Now lets move on, walk through here to our nice new “government grants welcome” rosy garden we planted, mind you that garden fertiliser does wonders for the garden”.
    Hmmn same barrel, new paint, new branding, but fishy business as usual?

  41. England more and more resembles Russia, where perpetrators of the crime (if they are close enough to Putin) are invariably put in charge of “investigating” their own crimes. And everything is SO legal and orderly. Yes, they can!

  42. “9.6 Allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, could not be substantiated. CRU researchers were part of a large group of scientists taking responsibility for the AR4 text, and were not in a position to determine the content
    [All emphases above and below added -hro]
    Interesting moving of the goal-posts on the part of UEA; the implication from the above, leaves open the possibility that the “text” in question refers to the SPM or Synthesis report (for which Briffa may – may not – have had “responsibility”). Muir Russell was far more specific:

    “It has been alleged that Briffa, in his role as lead author for Chapter 6 in Working Group 1 for AR4, and as the member of the writing team with the most relevant expertise, attempted to bias the scientific conclusions towards those of the MBH98/99 and to set aside the inconvenient evidence of M&M2003.” [p. 77]

    Muir Russell’s phrasing of Briffa’s response:

    “Briffa also rejected the implication that this text was his responsibility, asserting that it was the responsibility of the whole writing group, not of any one person.”

    The IPCC’s very own “rules” clearly state:

    responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors [see Muir Russell, Excerpt from “Tasks & Responsibilities” p.89] “

    To which, lest anyone has forgotten, one must add (from Briffa’s very own E-mail to Wahl, cited in Muir Russell on p. 79):

    I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments.”

    This is certainly consistent with “the rule”, but far from consistent with the new, improved, “revisionist” claim that Briffa was “not in a position to determine the content”.
    Unless, of course, post-normal science dictates an attribution of meaning to the word “I” that is significantly different from the common understanding of this particular subjective, 1st person, singular, pronoun.
    When is an IPCC rule not an IPCC rule?

  43. In above, [see Muir Russell, Excerpt from “Tasks & Responsibilities” p.89] should read:
    [see IAC’s Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC, Excerpt from “Tasks & Responsibilities”, p. 89]

  44. “[emails]… which are believed to have been obtained illegally from a back-up server in CRU.”
    Is anyone still looking at how the fish got out of the barrel or has everyone given up? I was surprised this was included.

  45. Most normal people seeing the original ‘Climategate’ emails would assume it represented a small and powerful clique manipulating available data to ‘prove’ their assumptions and suppressing any efforts to present any other views.
    Any enquiry could only ever completely exonerate or completely condemn the CRU. There was no real space for a middle ground report, which may have satisfied the public. Consequently the conclusions are pretty much disbelieved.
    Had the CRU been condemned, people sacked, and the work moved to the UK Met Office then CAGW may be in better shape. As it is Climategate has acted like a cancer on CAGW : ‘If these people can get away with it then what can we trust of the CAGW claims’.

  46. This announcement makes me so proud to be British:
    We may have lost our Empire.
    Our military might is a shadow of its former self.
    Our politicians are more appeasing, mealy mouthed and AGW fanatic than those of most other countries, but
    When it comes to a professional cover up or a whitewash over incompetence, corruption or bad science, our Establishment is right up there with the world’s best.

  47. This is a text-book case of the use of false assertions relying on other false assertions for support. One whitewash depends another whitewash for it’s validity. What a really neat scam the whole proposition turns out to be. Nobody can whitewash better than the Brits.
    Is a BS artist with a title better than a BS artist without? Apparently the UL press will think so. They wonder why there was an American revolution. Things haven’t gotten better there in the ensuing centuries.
    One example:

    “CRU did not withhold underlying raw data, having directed the single request for information to the owners of that data.

    We all know this is BS. Yet, they can tell this kind of lie without fear of contradiction because the MSM has been sucked into the scam. Suck is a pretty good description.

  48. Isn’t there a contradiction here?
    CRU has given the excuse that the data is proprietary and therefore cannot be provided. Then in this report it says the info was freely available. Then it says that anyone is free to create a network like CRU.
    Yet somehow after the dust clears no one seems to have the raw data.
    What kind on nonsense is this? If they want to be legit must they not compile and archive the raw data?

  49. evanmjones says:
    September 6, 2010 at 6:49 pm
    Isn’t there a contradiction here?
    CRU has given the excuse that the data is proprietary and therefore cannot be provided. Then in this report it says the info was freely available. Then it says that anyone is free to create a network like CRU.
    Yet somehow after the dust clears no one seems to have the raw data.
    What kind on nonsense is this? If they want to be legit must they not compile and archive the raw data?
    ===============
    Not if there is a consensus. With a consensus, souls are sold, contracts are signed, fringe players are seduced, hedge funds get active, greed overcomes discretion,
    and a new business model is born.

  50. O/T but this is obviously one of those business opportunities – Bear Grylls northwest passage trip, sponsored by Future Capital Partners…accompanied by an ice-breaking vessel, something i only now learn:
    Future Capital Partners Northwest Passage Website – Diary
    6 Sept: Gusty winds and unpredictable seas means no smooth sailing
    We made rendezvous with the ice breaking vessel supporting us, which has been attempting an East to West passage and has been a huge friend to our expedition in so many ways…
    http://www.fcpnorthwestpassage.com/diary

  51. 6 Sept: Nature: Counting carbon in the Amazon: the results are in
    The researchers calculated 395 million tonnes of carbon stored in more than 4.3 million hectares of forest in the Madre de Dios region of southeast Peru…
    Published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study represents the first full-scale deployment of an integrated system developed by Asner, a remote sensing expert in the Carnegie Institution of Science’s Global Ecology Program, for assessing and monitoring carbon locked up in tropical forests. His goal is to provide a user-friendly system for accurately tracking carbon in support of a global warming policies that seek to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation, and as such he has already licensed the technology – free of charge – to Peru and other Latin American countries. ..
    Their figures came in a third lower than a 587-million-tonne baseline estimate using methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (although to be fair, the IPCC methods in question are intended to provide a preliminary estimate until such time as a more-detailed analysis can be conducted). ..
    And to help spread the word, he partnered with Google on a forest-monitoring tool that could make the satellite component available to all…
    http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/counting_carbon_in_the_amazon.html
    google is such a CAGW player:
    Telegraph: Temperature records to be made public
    The Met Office has also been speaking with internet giants Google about ways of placing the data online and making it accessible to the general public, including mapping the temperature records onto the Google Earth application.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7981883/Temperature-records-to-be-made-public.html

  52. When the climate science community is skeptical about catastrophic global warming in PRIVATE, why not everyone?
    Here is what they say in private:
    1) “Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!”
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=927&filename=1225026120.txt
    2) “I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin.”
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=947&filename=1231166089.txt
    3) “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” [This statement was made 5-years ago and the global warming rate still is zero]
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt
    4) “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt
    5) “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=138&filename=938031546.txt
    6) “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results”
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=186&filename=968705882.txt
    If the climate science community itself is allowed to be skeptical about man made global warming in private, why can not everyone in PUBLIC?
    With all this skepticism about the theory of man made global warming by skeptics and by the climate science community, in private, a trillion dollar policy is not justified until this theory is validated.
    Here is how we validate:
    Year=> IPCC Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (deg C)
    2005=>0.5
    2010=>0.6
    2015=>0.7
    2020=>0.8
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
    Year=>Global Mean Temperature Anomaly based on natural patterns (deg C)
    2005=>0.5
    2010=>0.4
    2015=>0.3
    2020=>0.2
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
    If the observation matches the IPCC projections then we may have man made global warming and we may need to do something. However, if the observed temperatures match the natural pattern, then we must reject the theory of man made global warming.
    We only need ten more years for the validation.
    Validation of theory is the kernel of science!

  53. evanmjones says:
    September 6, 2010 at 6:49 pm
    I’m still waiting to see if the ‘missing data’ ever turns up.
    Only Phil Jones knows for sure what happened to it, and he’s not taking questions.
    Maybe somebody used it on the paper mache model, mixing it with whitewash.
    Never mind, though, because UEA will wear an indelible stain on it’s reputation like the Black Sox Scandal, and it will haunt them for a very long time. Pleasant dreams.

  54. My BS meter exploded after reading the first paragraph. It’s replacement instantly went into meltdown. What gets my goat is I’m one of the poor buggers funding this piece of feckulent toilet tissue via government grants.

  55. In Britain whitewashes of this sort happen not so much as to save the necks of the perpetrators of whatever happened, but more to preserve the necks of those who appointed, applauded, were taken in by the perpetrators. Save Jones so xyz aren’t made to look like gullible fools. But once Jones is ‘saved’, I suspect xyz will quietly come for him.

  56. The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones. How true and known 500 years ago and maybe longer.
    As boballab @11:53 refers ” it wasn’t the break-in that destroyed Nixon; it was the cover up”. One can only hope that eventually all these whitewashes will be exposed and be all the more damning of the participants.
    DBD @ 12:58 refers to the lack of trust in scientists with good news. Could it be that many are aware of the manipulation of science in one area and simply extrapolate to others. The story also refers to scientists on government grants being seen as policy driven rather than science driven. I wonder why people would think that?

  57. @Peter Miller says: September 6, 2010 at 6:14 pm
    Absolutely spot on.
    To save embarrassment to the Arts Graduate media & politicians who unquestioningly sucked up the UEA’s scientific incompetence and portrayed themselves as planet saviours (whilst lining up the policies to hike energy costs through the roof and wreck the economy) they will go to any lengths to whitewash this. And the British Establishment are world class when it comes to closing ranks, calling on their old school chums in academia and the scientific institutions for support and coming out with spin so brazen that Dr. Goebbels would have blushed.
    Just look out for Phil Jones [snip]
    This nonsense will continue until the major blackouts start. Once people are shivering in the dark, I don’t think they will readily accept that Global Warming made the wind stop blowing just when we needed all those bird shredders the most.
    Just wait to see Acton, Davies, Jones & Briffa in their nice ivory tower as the peasants flock towards them with pitchforks and flaming torches aready.

  58. bill says: “In Britain whitewashes of this sort happen”.
    And they keep happening and will continue to keep happening as long as the public are gullible enough to believe that these whitewashes are anything other than a PR stunt with predetermined outcomes.
    As George Bush said (tried to say) … ish : “fool me once, shame on you, fool me on Iraq, etc. etc. etc. climategate, etc., shame on the British public”.

  59. Peter Miller says: at 6:14 pm
    “…When it comes to a professional cover up or a whitewash over incompetence, corruption or bad science, our Establishment is right up there with the world’s best.”
    Yes, we are the best. Notice the timing of the announcements of these so-called “inquiries”. It’s always just at the point when a scandal is about to explode into the mainstream media and imprint itself in the minds of most of the general public. Before that happens, and the public starts demanding people be punished for their corruption and, (horror of horrors) politicians risk having their pet policies changed or killed, they “take ownership” of the situation by announcing that there will be an official inquiry into the scandal. Whitehall is so familiar with this process, they even have a name for it; it’s called “containment”, and it runs like the well-oiled machine it has become.
    Hence the well-deserved equation in the mind of the British public:
    Official inquiry = expensive whitewash.

  60. 13.2 Universities should develop formal approaches to the training of researchers in basic software development methodologies and best practice.
    We shall consider the development of a programme of workshops for researchers in appropriate disciplines.
    Lol. Maybe Harry could run some of those.

  61. Like most ‘modern’ UK universities they are very parochial so would have no idea when Labour Day is in the US. In Europe we, or some of them, celebrate the old communist labour day of 1st May. But UEA will not release information in any way to help others.

  62. I was told, many years ago, that justice in the UK is available on the same basis as dinner at the Ritz. I used to regard this as an overly-cynical viewpoint, but, after most of a decade living in or near London, I now know it to be true.
    When I first arrived here from New Zealand, I was startled to be labelled an ‘ upstart colonial’ and was quietly informed by my new colleagues that the UK has its own rules, it always has and, if I was to survive in my profession, I had better learn to make accommodations very quickly. At this point, a South African colleague gave me some excellent guidance –
    “If there is a problem here, the lowest-ranked person in the chain of command confronted by the problem will write a full report setting out the problem in detail but also pointing out that the writer is not, of course, responsible. The completed report will be delivered to the next level up the chain of command, and the writer will consider his or her duty discharged nobly and the problem may now be ignored. The fact that the problem still exists and will accellerate in seriousness will eventually lead to an enquiry at a very senior level. Everyone involved, of course, will be publicly exonerated. Only after all the shouting has died down will some poor sods who are utterly without influence be found as scapegates and held responsible. Heads do roll eventually and problems do get fixed, but the established procedure allows the ruling elites time and space to lift their coat-tails out of the mud. Those of us from the old colonies have the habit of tackling problems as we stumble into them as we have had to be reasonably self-suficient and have had no huge and entrenched ruling elite to contend with. But taking sprocedural short-cuts and attempting to solve problems here will get the solver labelled as a whistle-blower, which is a very finely-tuned defense mechanism. So write the report and leave it at that for your own safety. The problem will be solved eventually, just make sure it’s not your head that rolls!”
    So, in my view, Climategate is not by any means over and I am heartened that Mr Stringer, the MP who is making noise about this right now, appears to be acting as the catalyst which will begin the rest of the time-honoured process.
    I am also convinced that the sudden lack of money in government coffers will force a re-examination of government energy policy and, ultimately, an approxiamation of justice and good sense will eventually prevail.
    REPLY: Very interesting analysis, thank you… – Mike

  63. I would find it very funny if someone whitewashed the UAE building. Based on the picture I saw white would look pretty nice on it.

  64. My theory all along is that Phil Jones is holding out for an expose book deal.
    He’ll bring the whole house of cards down with one explosive warts n all book.
    It’ll be the first honest money he’s earned in years.

  65. In other words he sold his ‘brand’, presumably his ‘Sir’, to UEA for £40,000. Would we could all do that!
    No you could not 😉 , have you run a multi million pound building project and sent in a bill for 10 times the orginal estimate. Have you been named a the prime person at fault by the following inquiry. Have you been pensioned off with a large lump sum plus copper plate pension. Have you then turn up running a University on £200K per annum plus large pension rights.
    I wonder why he settled for only £40K, maybe it was payback time.
    Well done Mr Russell, the knighthoods in the post

  66. Have members of Sir Muir Russell`s panel yet realised that their scientific reputations are now destroyed? That is the reaction of most British scientists I have spoken with.

  67. Dave says: 3:20 am
    “Have members of Sir Muir Russell’s panel yet realised that their scientific reputations are now destroyed?”
    …Whether they have, or not, is irrelevant to the Establishment. They have done their duty as “a safe pair of hands” in steering the British public’s attention (and potential anger) away from the global warming fraud, which was threatening to blow up in the faces of all the Establishment figures involved in this corruption. Their sacrifice, whether or not they realised they were sacrificing their reputations, has also allowed enough time to elapse for the public to forget the outrageous details which sparked the inquiry in the first place, and let some key players move out of the immediate vicinity of any explosion in the future, so as to escape with their own reputations intact.

  68. Last week the UK Commons Science & Technology Committee advised of further hearings thus:
    On 31 March 2010 the former Science and Technology Committee published a report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) (HC (2009-10) 387-I). Due to the approaching general election the Committee had to complete its work in March 2010 before two reviews that UEA itself had set up reported. These two reviews have now completed their work and published their conclusions and recommendations.
    Perhaps this re-opening and the quiet words of Graham Stringer M.P. (a chemist) explain the concern of UEA who might have thought the matter was ended.

  69. They are hoping to put a bit of sealant on the whitewash to distract from the poor quality of the underlying paint.
    They will fail.

  70. David Waring says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:27 am
    “UEA, like the rest of the planet outside the US, don’t even know Labor Day happens. It will not have entered into their consciousness.”
    ==============================================
    James Sexton says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm
    They knew enough about the U.S. to know we handle FOI requests in a slightly different manner. They knew enough about the U.S. to invoke the EPA’s findings. It kinda implies they’re paying attention to what’s going on over here, wouldn’t you say?
    ==============================================
    Don’t forge the very timely release of the Stern Report. It was just in time for the US Congress hearing on Climate. Of course they pay attention to the timing (November elections and the House and Senate reconvene Sept 13th – a week from now) . Also they have a very good American spinmeister on their payroll. He is named Stan Greenberg and has put politicians in seats of power in sixty different countries including working for Tony Blair.
    ”Stan Greenberg provides strategic advice and research for leaders, companies, campaigns, and NGOs trying to advance their issues in tumultuous times…. a strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming. ”
    http://www.macmillanspeakers.com/speaker.aspx?name=stanleybgreenberg

  71. I don’t think it is over yet by a long way. They may have used thousands of gallons of whitewash, but it is often the cover-up that does more damage to a cause than the original crime.

  72. Whitewash after whitewash and it still won’t appear any whiter. One could perchance begin to suspect the true color of this stuff after all is kind of “offwhite”

  73. In the Academic World there is little significance given to the mumbo-jumbo of such documents –except of course that which is given to findings by the specific parties under investigation, which actually matter not at all. In point of fact, UEA/CRU is toast, and will remain so for years to come. Their attempt to ‘put the best face’ on it is no less than that which any fool would make in similiar circumstances. Their reputation has been damaged severly in the Academic World, no bout a’doubt it.
    PS: PennState is in the same barrel of fish as UEA/CRU, though no as far down of course. Oh the shame, the shame, the shame.. and all over a few million dollars, what a price to pay!

  74. nc says:
    September 6, 2010 at 3:30 pm
    I read the link with DBD provided and read this, ” such as the mind-control chemicals that governments are allegedly spraying from commercial airliners”. read the link for context anyhow I would replace that with our not so neutral liberal education system.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Anyone paying attention to the various scandals has to have very little trust left in scientists and none in government.
    Some of the people are not all that “off the wall crazy” about “chemtrails” Allegedly they took samples in to have them analyzed: http://educate-yourself.org/ct/ctarticle12.shtml
    Whether the whole thing is actually true or not does not matter. It is the scandal that matters and the loss in credability that matters. People just do not trust the government.
    This is because climategate is not the only bomb dropped recently. There is Monsanto’s Mike Taylor who was an FDA staff lawyer and Executive Assistant to the FDA Commissioner from 1976 to 1981. ”From 1981 to 1991… acting as Monsanto’s lawyer and lobbyist. He was a major proponent for overturning the Delaney Clause, a 1958 law prohibiting the introduction of known carcinogens to processed foods, a law Monsanto hated and which was eventually overturned by Clinton in 1996. His main responsibility during this time was gaining regulatory approval of Monsanto’s genetically modified cancer-causing bovine growth hormone (rBGH).”
    There was the Autism – Vaccine scandal
    There was the Con Agra e-coli cover-up. Followed by the work done by bloggers on the food safety scams and the Rep. Delauro [D] – Monsanto – HR 875 “food Safety bill connections.
    Then there was the whole Swine flu fiasco. With the microbiologist, Joseph Moshe alleging- Baxer Swine flu vaccine was a bioweapon and getting silenced by the US government. Some of the scandal was covered asThe ‘false’ pandemic: Drug firms cashed in on scare over swine flu in the main media. And the tale of US Patent Application 20090010962:
    Scientist who heads WHO laboratory on influenza holds patent for bioengineered swine flu virus made the rounds of the internet.
    Is it any wonder according to a Rassmussen Report, August 26, 2010 Government ethics and corruption have been second only to the economy in terms of importance to voters over the past year?

  75. Tenuc says: I don’t think it is over yet by a long way.
    Tenuc, the simple fact is that climate “science” is now being reported in an entirely different way post climategate to the hype and rediculous sycophantic hype pre-climategate.
    And, if there is one area which has gone from about the most frequent news on the internet to virtually extinction in 6 months, it is the “scientists report that global warming could …” tagged onto the beginning of a pretty ordinary bit of research about the numbers of fresh water flees, or whatever the science PR people were trying to flog to the MSM.
    The simple fact is that linking your research to global warming, no longer adds any credibility or interest as far as the MSM are concerned. To put it another way, if you want your research reported in the MSM, the last thing you want is to have it linked with the tarnished subject of climate “science”.

  76. “10.9 There is a lack of understanding of the presence of long-duration back-ups of email which, had it been stronger, would have led to a greater challenge of assertions regarding the availability of material. We accept this, albeit, as is recognised in the Information Commissioner’s guidance, retrieving such data may not always be a practical option.

    Translation:
    Jones: Damn, I thought we’d deleted it.
    Great backup system though. UEA and CRU didn’t seem aware it existed. When they became aware, they say retrieval may not be practical. Some backup system if retrieval isn’t easy, and if not, are UEA or CRU credible custodians for climate data?
    Saying retrieval may not be practical isn’t very credible either given a ‘hacker’ supposedly demonstrated just how easy it can be to retrieve a small and specific sample of data from CRU’s own backup server. Perhaps once this ‘hacker’ is identified, the UEA may want to ask for some tips on data retrieval?
    Of course the UEA and CRU have a bit of a problem with the Russell report. Claims that data or emails have been deleted aren’t as credible now we know the backup server exists, and the leaked data represented only a very small sample. The ICO has also told them clearly that they are not above the law regarding FOI or EIR disclosures.
    So there’s a lot more data that may be FOI’able, and may explain why UEA’s saying it’s too hard to retrieve and possibly pre-empting turning down future requests on cost grounds. A cynic may also think it’s why we’re nearly 9 months on from the ‘hack’, and there’s a deafening silence regarding the investigation. While the server is held by the Police, it has immunity from FOI or EIR requests. Once the investigation is complete and the server returned, it’s fair game. I’ve already sent a request to the ICO asking that given the UEA’s history of non co-operation and compliance, both the server *and the copy* produced for the Russell review are preserved.

  77. When you have evidence in their own words of manipulated code and data, efforts to withhold information and efforts to silence those who would expose the fraud, and your “investigation” concludes, ““On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” that for me just adds to the list of people I can dismiss as dishonest — or at least not the slightest bit interested in the truth.
    And as a layperson I need someone to explain to me why, if I see this kind of politics and manipulation of the facts in climate science, I should not presume that it’s going on in other fields of science?

  78. Item 3: A’ Review, which invited any party …including those who levelled allegations…to make representations…’ Who were they? Steve Mc , Jeff Id, et al?
    Irony abounds!

  79. This bit jumped out at me:
    10.7 A number of emails appeared to incite deletion or evidence deletion of other emails, although there was no evidence of emails being deleted that were the subject of a request for disclosure. We accept this shows insufficient awareness of and focus on obligations under the FoIA/EIR, but we welcome the finding that there was no attempt to delete information with respect to a request already made.
    Is that what they said? No, they said there was evidence of attempts at evidence deletion, but that they couldn’t find evidence that records subject to a FOIA request were deleted.
    If you follow CRU’s logic in its response to the finding, you’d believe that Phil Jones suddenly had an interest in deleting emails only to keep his colleagues’ inboxes tidy.

  80. I’ve been front stage for a multi-million dollar embezzlement (data forensics) and this reads as the firm I worked with themselves tossed to the public. How do you address the issue of dishonesty within YOUR house without raising concerns about YOUR own competence? The answer being, you can’t. In our case addressing the matter truthfully without deflection meant the partners had to admit a complete disregard for internal auditing. Not something any accounting firm would care to have made public knowledge and its the same in the case of Climategate. For there to be wrong found, ignorance would have to be admitted.
    The egg they were hit with by McKitrick and McIntyre was ostrich not chicken and still they think to wipe it away with a handkerchief…

  81. If it isn’t reproducible it isn’t science.
    It really is that simple. The effort evident to game peer review and to prevet any meaningful peer review process is a straightforward case of professional misconduct. The UEA damages it’s credability still further with this whitewash.

  82. D. King says:
    September 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm
    LEAVE THE UEA ALONE!!!
    yep, we sure will. All alone as in fewer students, existing students transferring out, fewer faculty applications, and millions of scientists around the world will not believe a thing that comes out that is credited to anyone at UEA.

  83. jorgekafkazar says:
    September 6, 2010 at 11:21 am
    “The University is indebted to Sir Muir Russell…”

    I wonder what that comes to in pounds sterling?

  84. Looking forward: Phil Jones (alumnus of the ‘University’ of Lancaster), having been exonerated so many times, will he end his days as Lord Jones, or teaching geography in a comprehensive in Newcastle? Or retiring due to ill-health, no doubt brought on by all those pesky data requests, and the subsequent strain of the enquiries which, remember, exonerated him? Speaking of remembering, lets not forget, courtesy of the hacked emails, that this is the man who was able to say with a straight face, in effect, ‘why should I give you the data if you are going to prove it wrong’?

  85. Did I miss the helpful suggestions in this thread as to what would be considered a properly neutral panel and process?
    If a new review was conducted with extreme bias, shoddy methods and dubious provenance, and found not in UEA’s favour, all that would be overlooked because the message would be ‘right’. Right?
    And if a new panel was unbiased, unconnected to the accused, unimpeachable in its methods, and found in favour of the UEA, then it would still be a ‘white wash’, right?
    Let’s be honest, no one here is more interested in truth than they are in having their favoured message prevail.

  86. hro001,

    “It has been alleged that Briffa, in his role as lead author for Chapter 6 in Working Group 1 for AR4, and as the member of the writing team with the most relevant expertise, attempted to bias the scientific conclusions towards those of the MBH98/99 and to set aside the inconvenient evidence of M&M2003.” [p. 77]
    Muir Russell’s phrasing of Briffa’s response:
    “Briffa also rejected the implication that this text was his responsibility, asserting that it was the responsibility of the whole writing group, not of any one person.”

    Let’s see the list of Lead Authors, to provide additional context.
    Keith R. Briffa (UK) | Jean-Claude Duplessy (France) | Fortunat Joos (Switzerland) | Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France) | Daniel Olago (Kenya) | Bette Otto-Bliesner (USA) | W. Richard Peltier (Canada) | Stefan Rahmstorf (Germany) | Rengaswamy Ramesh (India) | Dominique Raynaud (France) | David Rind (USA), Olga Solomina (Russian Federation) | Ricardo Villalba (Argentina) | De’er Zhang (China)
    You say;

    The IPCC’s very own “rules” clearly state:
    “responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors [see Muir Russell, Excerpt from “Tasks & Responsibilities” p.89] “
    To which, lest anyone has forgotten, one must add (from Briffa’s very own E-mail to Wahl, cited in Muir Russell on p. 79):
    “I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments.”
    This is certainly consistent with “the rule”, but far from consistent with the new, improved, “revisionist” claim that Briffa was “not in a position to determine the content”.

    There is nothing to suggest that Briffa ‘determined’ the content. He is perfectly at liberty to write and rewrite sections of the draft text and submit them to the team of Lead Authors. Why do you assume any suggestions he made went through without discussion and approval from them?
    As usual, the snippet taken from the email changes considerably when the full context is revealed.

    Gene
    I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards , that relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little scope for additional text , but I must put on record responses to these comments – any confidential help , opinions are appreciated. I have only days now to complete this revision and response.

    ‘Gene’, is Eugene Wahl, whose 2006 study found some agreement with McIntyre & McKitrick’s criticisms of MBH. Seems to me Briffa was trying to do due diligence on the skeptical view of the MBH reconstruction, recognizing that he may have a biased view, and trying to be “fair” to the skeptical view. It is likely that this exchange led to M&M’s work being included in AR4. Although that is speculative, it is on firmer ground than your speculation based on the use of the personal pronoun in an email.
    In keeping with appeals for and recommendations of transparency, here is a link to the email exchange in question.
    http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=716&filename=1153470204.txt
    No such link appears in your post, or at the web page you link to, from which comes much of the text in your post.
    Not to mention that the bundle of emails themselves are but a small selection, which means there is yet more context missing.
    Let this be an object lesson on the perfidy of quote-mining.

  87. Professor Jones has commented that, while emails are cleared out from time to time, this is to keep accounts manageable and within the allocated storage.

    Bulls**t! We’re talking about a data stronghold with storage and computational capacity to archive and manipulate worldwide climate data. Jonesie is saying they just don’t have enough storage space for emails? This is ridiculous. Text from correspondence takes up NEGLIGIBLE space in modern computer storage devices. When in career transition some years ago I asked the IT people at one university if they would hold onto a directory of all my emails from there for a couple of years, apologizing that I had stored every piece of correspondence over my four year service there. They responded that four years of emails was completely trivial in terms of their storage capacity — they said I could archive emails for my entire lifetime and not make a noticable dent storage-wise. Of course, this was before the advent of embedded graphics and video, but I still save all my email, and with decades of archived mail, I still only use a few gigabytes. I don’t find Jones’ explanation credible in the least.

  88. barry says:
    September 7, 2010 at 7:58 pm
    [in response to my post]

    “There is nothing to suggest that Briffa ‘determined’ the content. He is perfectly at liberty to write and rewrite sections of the draft text and submit them to the team of Lead Authors. Why do you assume any suggestions he made went through without discussion and approval from them?

    I don’t believe I stated that Briffa “determined” the content. Rather that he did have “responsibility”. Surely someone should take responsibility! And since Briffa was the designated responder to the comments on that section “on behalf of the chapter team”, why would the responsibility not be his?
    In the notable absence of any indication which would suggest that any further discussion and review took place following Briffa’s post-Wahl consultation [not to mention the final text that appeared in AR4], this “assumption” is not unreasonable, although I certainly concede that YMMV.
    Barry also wrote:

    In keeping with appeals for and recommendations of transparency, here is a link to the email exchange in question.
    http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=716&filename=1153470204.txt
    No such link appears in your post, or at the web page you link to, from which comes much of the text in your post.
    Actually, you are mistaken. On the page I linked to (which you correctly note is the source of the text in my post, although one would hope that it is not a crime to link to further material pertaining to the same matter), there are, in fact, 2 links to an earlier post in which I not only cite the same text from the E-mail, but also provide a link to the original E-mail. Suggest you revisit the post to which I had linked where you will find two links to:
    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/the-climate-change-game-monopoly-the-ipcc-version/
    (Helpful hint from Hilary: click the word “noted” in the first paragraph and the word “designated” in the paragraph that begins “This strikes me as being a rather peculiar response in light of the procedure for responding to reviewer comments”)

Comments are closed.