Overseas readers may or may not be aware of the Leveson inquiry into media ethics which is currently gripping the metropolitan elite in the UK. One submission of evidence to the inquiry is of interest - from the Science Media Centre, who were involved in PR efforts on behalf of the Oxburgh and Russell inquiries.
Their submission makes the extraordinary claim that the inquiries into CRU were "independent" and that Phil Jones was exonerated. Given that even Harrabin and Fred Pearce have said that the inquiries were inadequate, this claim seems to me to be more spin than truth. Fox also seems to want the Leveson inquiry to believe that Jones was cleared of misleading policymakers over climate change. Given that the Russell inquiry found the "hide the decline" graph to be misleading, this seems to me to be a case of spinning oneself into the realms of falsehood.
The Leveson Inquiry has heard much from big names whose reputation has been damaged by inaccurate reporting. But this problem does not just affect celebrities. While it is thankfully rare, there are scientists who have suffered serious damage to their scientific standing after being misreported in the press...
There is...the case of Professor Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia who was widely accused by the media of fraudulently doctoring data to mislead the public and policy makers about climate change. Even after four independent inquiries cleared Professor Jones of any scientific malpractice some journalists continue to make the same false allegations (see separate submission from UEA). The SMC recommends that Phil Jones be called to the Inquiry to provide evidence. His evidence would be every bit as harrowing as that given by many of those in the media spotlight and would serve as a reminder that scientists are human beings and can also suffer enormously.
I like the idea of Jones being called to give evidence though. I think yet another inquiry that heard from CRU but not their principal critics would rather prove the point.