Motley CRU Update

The Russell report is out today, and the review into the behavior of Phil Jones and his crew at the University of East Anglia regarding the somewhat startling revelations of Climategate has unsurprisingly cleared the CRU of deliberate wrongdoing.  Jones has already been reinstated at the university, in a slightly different role than before the scandal broke, which shows that the results were pretty much prejudged.

That the motley CRU was cleared is no surprise, but that they so brazenly return Doc Jones to his job despite serious criticisms of his behaviour and administrative ability is a shock.

The report criticized Jones et al for creating a ‘misleading chart’:

the same inquiry team came to the potentially damaging conclusion that a graph from the scientists, used prominently by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) was “misleading”, though there had been no intent to mislead.

Jones and co were also slammed for evading FOI requests:

The CRU was ‘unhelpful and defensive’ in response to reasonable requests for information about the weather stations used to gather the temperature records.

If you harbor any doubt that the report was designed to be anything but a whitewash, consider that one of the key charges against Jones was that he deleted emails that might have been damaging if they were exposed in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.  But the panel avoided asking the one question that might have answered that charge:

On the allegation that Dr Jones had deleted emails, the inquiry team did find evidence that emails “might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them”. But neither the university nor the inquiry team asked the scientist specifically if he had deleted emails that were subject to a FoI request

In other words, Jones deleted some emails, but is given a pass because no one asked the pertinent question.  Employers evaluating candidates for jobs this summer might want to move UEA grads to the bottom of the pile if this is what counts as academic integrity at the Norfolk institution.

The findings of the whitewash panels are less relevant than the damage done to science in general by the motley CRU.  And that is the real shame in all this.

[ad#insert-large]

20 thoughts on “Motley CRU Update”

  1. Why is anyone surprised a government stooge would find no wrong with government lying?

  2. Why is anyone surprised a government stooge would find no wrong with government lying?

  3. As the only part of the moderated post not directly quoting the BBC itself, that has taken them a few days to decide it ‘appears to be potentially defamatory’, I thought this may amuse as further example of what happens when the establishment gets to be judge and jury of what the public hears and thinks

    ——-

    Thank you for contributing to a BBC Blog. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below

    Postings to BBC blogs will be removed if they appear to be potentially defamatory.
    URL of content (now removed):
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/blog197/F18104816?thread=7612462&post=98077872#p98077872

    Subject:
    ‘Climategate’ scientists honest but should have been more open

    Posting:

    ps: Another seems to have cranked an eyebrow in light of:

    ‘But neither the university nor the inquiry team asked the scientist specifically if he had deleted emails that were subject to a FoI request.

    http://dailybayonet.com/?p=4647

    Does seem a tad… ‘loose’, really. Any blind horses around?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I

    —–
    :
    Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Sad, really.

  4. As the only part of the moderated post not directly quoting the BBC itself, that has taken them a few days to decide it ‘appears to be potentially defamatory’, I thought this may amuse as further example of what happens when the establishment gets to be judge and jury of what the public hears and thinks

    ——-

    Thank you for contributing to a BBC Blog. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below

    Postings to BBC blogs will be removed if they appear to be potentially defamatory.
    URL of content (now removed):
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/blog197/F18104816?thread=7612462&post=98077872#p98077872

    Subject:
    ‘Climategate’ scientists honest but should have been more open

    Posting:

    ps: Another seems to have cranked an eyebrow in light of:

    ‘But neither the university nor the inquiry team asked the scientist specifically if he had deleted emails that were subject to a FoI request.

    http://dailybayonet.com/?p=4647

    Does seem a tad… ‘loose’, really. Any blind horses around?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I

    —–
    :
    Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Sad, really.

  5. Good news. By process of elimination (I am conducting a science experiment) your blog link is in the clear. It’s deletion still resulted in being referred.

    However, as there is not much left to test, I am wondering if writing words might be deemed by Aunty to be ‘off limits’.

  6. Good news. By process of elimination (I am conducting a science experiment) your blog link is in the clear. It’s deletion still resulted in being referred.

    However, as there is not much left to test, I am wondering if writing words might be deemed by Aunty to be ‘off limits’.

  7. STOP PRESS: Better news – my original post, linking your blog post, has been reinstated.

    But I don’t think they a) liked my Complaint letter or b) my science experiment to try and second guess what might ‘appear’ to be ‘possibly’ defamatory…

    Not sure if they are quite helping themselves on the old free speech/openness front here.

  8. STOP PRESS: Better news – my original post, linking your blog post, has been reinstated.

    But I don’t think they a) liked my Complaint letter or b) my science experiment to try and second guess what might ‘appear’ to be ‘possibly’ defamatory…

    Not sure if they are quite helping themselves on the old free speech/openness front here.

  9. Thank you, but hardly single-handed. And very aware of Adm. Yamamoto’s post Pearl Harbor caution.

    The irony is I am very environmentally-concerned, and do see a measure of (A) in GW.

    However, I have become more and more concerned that the politico-media establishment has opted for a vague, blanket climate ‘it’ to gabble about, potentially pouring bazillions into to a ‘cure’ with, as far as I can see, no clear idea on enviROI. That got me worried about green holes we could ill-afford.

    However there are many other arguing this, though it does seem to be dominated by two extremes. As dogmatic as each other. Which is a pity.

    Where, as in this case, I have been more moved, is the what I perceive as a more immediate concern via some intemperate language and abuses of free speech. Which is a more immediate threat.

    From Cabinet Ministers talking of ‘settled science’ to Prime Ministers of ‘saboteurs’, to supposedly objective media cherry picking what facts they quote and ‘interpreting events’, to imposing very odd moderation policies that smack more of propagandist control, I feel I have to speak up.

    Arguments are won by persuasion; not suppression. In this I feel the current crop of self-appointed messengers are failing in both the content and especially communicating of a vital message. And blaming the public seems daft, whilst trying to restrict simple questioning being downright sinister.

    I had and have many questions. As did/do you. They were logical, well and calmly posed. The only valid response is to answer them. Not delete. Especially when that action can make things even worse.

    The pity is that this is often left to proxy respondents who can too often allow passion to control logic, and the whole thing simply degenerates. Until the next time. So we lurch from one ‘pontificate, challenge, knee-jerk, delay, concede (but avoid any response), move on’ series that seems only designed as creeping attrition.

    Might serve an industry well vested in this arena, but hardly makes the future more secure for my kids, from democracy to climate.

  10. Thank you, but hardly single-handed. And very aware of Adm. Yamamoto’s post Pearl Harbor caution.

    The irony is I am very environmentally-concerned, and do see a measure of (A) in GW.

    However, I have become more and more concerned that the politico-media establishment has opted for a vague, blanket climate ‘it’ to gabble about, potentially pouring bazillions into to a ‘cure’ with, as far as I can see, no clear idea on enviROI. That got me worried about green holes we could ill-afford.

    However there are many other arguing this, though it does seem to be dominated by two extremes. As dogmatic as each other. Which is a pity.

    Where, as in this case, I have been more moved, is the what I perceive as a more immediate concern via some intemperate language and abuses of free speech. Which is a more immediate threat.

    From Cabinet Ministers talking of ‘settled science’ to Prime Ministers of ‘saboteurs’, to supposedly objective media cherry picking what facts they quote and ‘interpreting events’, to imposing very odd moderation policies that smack more of propagandist control, I feel I have to speak up.

    Arguments are won by persuasion; not suppression. In this I feel the current crop of self-appointed messengers are failing in both the content and especially communicating of a vital message. And blaming the public seems daft, whilst trying to restrict simple questioning being downright sinister.

    I had and have many questions. As did/do you. They were logical, well and calmly posed. The only valid response is to answer them. Not delete. Especially when that action can make things even worse.

    The pity is that this is often left to proxy respondents who can too often allow passion to control logic, and the whole thing simply degenerates. Until the next time. So we lurch from one ‘pontificate, challenge, knee-jerk, delay, concede (but avoid any response), move on’ series that seems only designed as creeping attrition.

    Might serve an industry well vested in this arena, but hardly makes the future more secure for my kids, from democracy to climate.

Comments are closed.