More Russell review evidence

The CCE review has just posted up a letter responding to an inquiry from Graham Stringer as to how the panel dealt with the recommendations of the Science and Technology Select Committee. I don't recall having seen Stringer's original letter. Anyone know if it is there?

Comments

[Mac]

Quote, CCE, "Therefore UEA were given a near-final draft for fact-checking alone.
Let me stress that none of UEA’s comments changed our conclusions or
recommendations."

So what were UEA's comments to the near-final draft, and was the near-final draft changed significantly?

Surely, given that CCE conceded that their report had been commissioned by UEA and had a right of reply, it is up to others to judge whether CCE did change their final conclusions or recommendations based on UEA's comments!

[TonyN]

" .. UEA were given a near-final draft for fact-checking alone.
Let me stress that none of UEA’s comments changed our conclusions or
recommendations."

Will we ever know what 'facts' were 'checked' and what changes were made? Sir Muir Russell's typically cautious wording certainly suggests that there was some last minute input from UEA.

[Latimer Alder]

So we have the published version, before that the final draft, and (at any indeterminate time before that) the near-final draft. I could call my first draft the 'near-final' draft as it is an entirely meaningless term.

Hear is the near-final draft (released by a truth seeker)

'Dear Eddie and Trev,

We suggest that Philboy wasn't good at record keeping much and a few minor criticisms, but other wise OK. And we won't waste time talking to contrarians as it would just add to our time, and I know you want us to keep costs down in these troubled times. plus it would upset Phil.

OK with that?

Ciao, Muir'

PS My invoice is in the post...please pay promptly.Times is hard. Tx.

[Viv Evans]

If an 'authority' feels the need to 'stress' that they haven't done something - beware!
Chances are they did just what they so strenuously denied.

[matthu]

Conclusions are recommendations have normally been drafted right at the outset.
Then suppporting evidence is amassed.
Finally changes are made to supporting evidence (normally by omission) where this can be shown to be in conflict with conclusions and recommendations.
All of this is consistent with what we ahev learnt.

[anonym]

Quote, CCE, "Therefore UEA were given a near-final draft for fact-checking alone.

Here as elsewhere, I smell lawyers.