Friday, 12 February 2010

The Russell Review into the UEA Email Leak




The University of East Anglia's climate research unit has appointed Muir Russell to lead an investigation into emails hackers stole and published from them.

The university said the inquiry would look at four key allegations including examining whether the leaked exchanges between climate scientists demonstrated any manipulation or suppression of data. The review will also look at the CRU's approach to assembling and presenting research findings, assess whether the department complied with freedom of information requests and investigate the security of data held by the university.

The UEA's vice-chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, said: "The reputation and integrity of UEA is of the utmost importance to us all. We want these allegations about CRU to be examined fully and independently. That is why I am delighted that Sir Muir has agreed to lead the independent review and he will have my and the rest of the university's full support."

However, Ward warned that the review, which is to begin soon, was unlikely to silence campaigning by climate sceptics. "The big question is whether so-called 'sceptics' will complain because the investigation will not be headed by one of their own, and whether they will suspend their campaigns of disinformation about this affair until the investigation is completed," he said.

It is a little suspect when an 'independent' review is fully funded by the instigators and one of the panel has been forced to resign only hours after the launch.

Well done to Bishop Hill for excellent research (remember to check the updates). Will this review provide a balanced report? Being a cynic I think not. Sir Muir Russell insisted yesterday that his work would be completely independent from the university, even although they are paying the bill.

'He who pays the piper calls the tune' springs to mind along with the question of who is funding this. Universities are funded from the public purse and research institutions. Take your pick.

9 comments:

Demetrius said...

This is all becoming quite fun in a surreal sort of way. Almost like the one where the Three Stooges run a restaurant. What you ordered wasn't what you got, and what you got wasn't what you thought it was. If you follow my logic.

frank-davis said...

However, Ward warned that the review, which is to begin soon, was unlikely to silence campaigning by climate sceptics.

Who's 'Ward'? Is it short for 'Edward' - i.e. Prof Edward Acton? If not, who is it?

Whoever 'Ward' is, he or she clearly thinks that sceptics just spread disinformation.

subrosa said...

I do follow your logic Demetrius. It's quite laughable the way the pro-lobby is behaving in attempting to protect their interests.

subrosa said...

Frank, I couldn't find a reference to Ward in the article either but I thought I would still quote it. You may well be right it's a short term for Edward because that's the only connection I could make.

BrianSJ said...

In terms of funding, presumably the scientists at CRU have Professional Indemnity insurance. An outcome could be that costs are claimed against that?

subrosa said...

Brian, sorry perhaps I haven't made my thoughts clear. The UEA is funding Russell's little cabal. Where does the UEA get the money to do that because their sources are the taxpayer or businesses with an interest in research.

Therefore either we're paying or parties who are interested in the 'right' outcome from this are paying.

Strathturret said...

Well Universities are run by the state so of course the taxpayer is paying.

I suspect that the sceptics/deniers will never be convinced. See JKF assasination/Diana car crash nuts. There are probably a few flat earthers around!

subrosa said...

I'm a sceptic Strathturret. I have yet to see evidence which is proof that humans are totally to blame for any change in climate. The case has been complete exaggerated in my view and purely for the financial gain of some.

Now pollution - yes I agree we are at fault.

Strathturret said...

Why do you disagree with scientific opinion on climate change? Do you disagree with scientific opinion on the best way of treating heart disease or cancer? Have you better ideas on how we should control malaria in the third world?

Are we going to ask Christopher Booker to design the next Forth Bridge for us? After all he is a clever chap educated at Oxford with a degree in History. He's a self appointed expert on climate change, writing a number of books attacking scientific theory yet he has no training or experience in science! Perhaps he could do some civil engineering in his spare time too?

These are all hugely complicated areas and unless you have studied them for a decade or so I would suggest you have to be guided by the experts.

To focus on a few errors or some dubious claims and rubbish the whole science is like saying that Toyota is a hopeless car manufacturer because of the current recalls, ignoring 50 years of success and a successful 'system' than many have copied and has delivered fantasic results decade after decade.

Related Posts with Thumbnails