This is curious and amusing. A few days back it was reported that there was a CG2 email from Phil Jones where he laments some skeptical slides being used in a powerpount lecture at UEA. Turns out that wasn’t the case after all.
From email 2639
This annoys me too. I’d read up and talk to people if I were to ever attempt moving to another field! It is just common sense. Neil Adger has taken over the running of First Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!!
Alan is retiring at the end of this year….thankfully.
But look at how it is proposed to deal with the problem – Mick Kelly suggests having Greenpeace invade the lectures:
That’s amazing re Alan Kendall (always thought he was rather a loose cannon). And, no, he didn’t contribute to 1A01 in my day – sure I’d have spotted had he done so! Who’s convening 1A01 nowadays? I’d call his bluff and constructively suggest that he might ensure consistency between what you say (assuming you give the lectures I used to cover?) and his account – for
the students’ sake at least! Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 Good luck!
I was surprised to learn that over on Bishop Hill, the lecturer Ian Kendall says in comments that he used slides from WUWT and from Jo Nova. He also laments being a lone voice in a sea of alarmism.
“First a needed correction. It is alleged that I used Climate Audit material in my teaching materials. Upon reviewing this material I find not a single instance of illustrations from that estimable site (sorry Steve). Instead most came from Watts up with That or from JoNova’s excellent site.” This relates to email 2639, where Phil Jones (incorrectly apparently) said that Kendall used CA.
My, my, how quickly it becomes evident to me that hitherto I was wise to refrain from blogging. By trying to defend UEA as an institution I only gave opportunities for further attack .
1) I choose not to add to the criticism heaped upon some of my colleagues; in my judgement this would add little – I’m sure that they are fully aware of my opinion of them. To refrain from adding to their woes is my right and those of you who choose to question my motives here only shine a light on their own predjuces.
2) I have criticised from within, but mine was almost alone voice and easily ignored. I have always been concerned about the fallout from Climategate, for the university’s good name (which in many respects it fully deserves) but advice I offered was ignored – as is its right to do so.
3) I still teach part-time at UEA, and still ask students to question the evidence about AGW for themselves – but not to first years students anymore. I never preached an anti AGW message (how could I, I don’t have a grounding in climate science) instead I showed students evidence and argument they were not hearing and asked them to draw their own conclusions – FROM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
I am truly astounded by the attacks on myself and from people I would previously have considered to on the same side of the fence.
I am also appalled by the rightious indignation expressed by some respondents. As if they have a god-given right to criticize and further to suggest/ insist upon the wholesale destruction of an institution on the basis that some of its actions offend.
Apologies from my typos and spelling. Latter never my strong suite and always believed the old saying that poor spelling a sign of intelligence. Perhaps too much reliance upon “spellchecker” in recent years.
I’m happy to help. I’m constantly amazed where I see material from this website being used. And, congratulations to Jo Nova too. She’s far better at conveying science in her artwork than I could ever hope to be.