Quote:
Originally Posted by onwebcam
|
yes, I read that report long ago. I dont remember it all. What do you think it says.
You know, posting links is a lazy and timid way to debate, you should at least add some commentary explaining why you think the link is relevant, or perhaps discussing it's provenance.
Anyway, aside from that, what's your point with posting thsi investogation. As I recall, it was the first one published, but I may have my sequence misremembered, I spend more time studying the theory than the investigations.
Am I supposed to go thru teh report and copy and paste the relevant quotes?
Maybe you think I'm intimidated by investogativese and I will be frightened by the thick language of this report? Dude, I read the whole thing when it first came out.
Lets see - okay, I'll do that
Quote:
Peer review
The conclusions reached by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER)
are in line with our predecessor Committee?s findings that ?the evidence they saw did
not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process and that
academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic
papers?. We stand by this conclusion and are satisfied with the detailed analysis of the
allegations by the ICCER. (Paragraph 77)
The Government notes the Committee?s conclusion that there was no evidence of attempts
to subvert the peer review process, and agrees that academics should not be criticised for
commenting informally on academic papers, noting that constructive criticism and
challenge is fundamental to ensuring a robust scientific approach.
Freedom of Information
We are concerned that the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review did not fully
investigate the serious allegation relating to the deletion of e-mails. We find it
unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from the Vice-Chancellor that
the e-mails still exist. On the basis of the ICO?s announcement made on 7 July 2010, it
is reasonable to conclude that there was a breach of EIR by a failure to provide a
Government response to the Science and Technology Committee?s First Report of Session 2010?12 5
response within 20 working days. On the allegation that e-mails were deleted to
frustrate requests for information, a firm conclusion has proved elusive. UEA have
accepted that there were weaknesses in their system, and in pockets of their culture, for
dealing with requests for information. We are pleased that they are working towards
rectifying this. (Paragraph 89)
The broader confusion about how FoI legislation should be applied to scientific
research must be resolved. The Information Commissioner?s Office has made some
progress, but this should now be pursued as a matter of urgency. The Government
Chief Scientific Adviser will also be looking at this issue. We regard this matter as
sufficiently serious that we want to see it resolved. We hope the Information
Commissioner?s Office will provide clear guidance on the application of FoI to
scientific research by the start of the new academic year in September 2011.
|
So, I suppose I should give you the cliff notes, and explain to you what they just said.
They said, they found no evidence of attempts to manipulate the science. Thats the first part.
Then they said, but the scientists should have responded to the FOI requests faster. However, they add, there is not a clear policy for handling and paying for responses to FOI requests, and somebody needs to define that policy.
All of thsi is well known and was heavily discussed at the time this report came out. The FOI pat was especially heavily discussed.
Because, you know, Steve McIntyre tried to get people from all over the world to harass the CRU with FOI requests.
I'd love to go into the whole FOI thing with you - shall we?