Steve McIntyre has an amusing piece about the briefing letter written by Lord Oxburgh to Kerry Emanuel, one of the panellists on his inquiry into the science of CRU. Oxburgh seems to have given his address as "care of Lisa Williams at UEA" - Williams being someone in the vice-chancellor's office.
This does rather suggest a certain lack of independence by Lord O, but something else has caught the eye of the observant readers at Climate Audit - something that makes the story even stranger than it at first seems.
Reader "Mac" at CA makes the following comment:
It is against parliamentary rules to use parliamentary stationery for other than official business. Also the designs and symbols of parliament must not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of parliament.
But now look at that logo again. Look at the really, really rubbish typography on the words "House of Lords". Look at how bad the coat of arms looks.
Now compare it to authentic House of Lords stationery. The difference isn't hard to spot is it?
It's interesting to speculate why Lord O or UEA would put together a dummy House of Lords letterhead. We know that peers are not allowed to use the letterhead on official Lords business, so its use as part of the UEA inquiry would be out of bounds, but why would they have gone to all the trouble of putting together a pretend letterhead and then make such a risibly poor job of it? Just to impress the colonials?
Bishop Hill