UPDATE: Phil Jones reinstated at UEA within minutes of the Russell report being published. Final proof the Professors behave as absolute fools in matters of Public Relations.
And so when the Sir Muir Russell’s Climategate report came out, confusion reigned. Richard Black is now claiming “skeptical circles” had issues with the Oxburgh Science-but-not-science report (what are you implying, Richard, has your BBC colleague Roger Harrabin entered any “skeptical circle” of late?).
And Sir Muir (according to what is reported by Black) appears to have spent untold amounts of public money only to miss at least two of the “five key leaked emails” identified (at no cost to the taxpayer) by Fred Pearce.
There we are then: three Climategate Commissions, and the only thing that is clear is how important FOI is.
If this is the way climate-related stuff is publicly handled, Lovelock might have been right, after all.
WE ARE DOOMED!
Maybe not because of AGW, maybe not because of swine flu, but one day surely something serious is going to hit us, and all we’ll get will be obfuscation, retrenchement, delays, half-baked reports…
ps in the meanwhile…can I have my UK tax money back please?
0 replies on “Climategate: It's Richard Black vs Roger Harrabin, Sir Muir vs Fred Pearce”
[…] Climategate: It's Richard Black vs Roger Harrabin, Sir Muir vs … […]
[…] skipping the science and the source code, Sir Muir's investigators also overlooked at least two of the five Climategate emails that environmentalist writer Fred Pearce identified as […]
[…] Climategate: It's Richard Black vs Roger Harrabin, Sir Muir vs … […]
Climategate: It's Richard Black vs Roger Harrabin, Sir Muir vs ……
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Martin. Peter Martin said: RT @omnologos: Three independent Commissions, but the #Climategate confusion continues – may I have my UK tax money back please? http://bit.ly/bd68vS #agw […]