Bishop Hill The hearing
Jan 15, 2013 Climate: CRU I'm just going to write a couple of lines just to report how it went. Further thoughts will follow tomorrow.
It was very much David versus Goliath, just as it was for the Newbery case, with Holland up against teams of professional lawyers. Unlike Newbery's case, the panel today were exemplary in their handling of the case and in the consideration they gave Holland as litigant in person. In terms of getting a successful outcome, I would say the chances are slim, as I don't think there is enough hard evidence to support the position that UEA were running the show, which is what would be required for the information sought to be disclosable. Unless, that is, the court thinks that the failures of the Russell inquiry can be explained in no other way.
Reader Comments (65)
Jan 16, 2013 at 10:18 AM | omnologos
So...who were the two men Acton had to sit rather cramply in-between of?
His minders; don't forget, he's already got one ASBO:
http://www.backupdirect.net/university-signs-freedom-of-information-commitment
/sarc
Can anyone help me. A name was mentioned yesterday and I would like to talk to him. Do not put any of his personal info on the web but, if anyone knows how to contact Conor McMenemie, ask Andrew to give you my email address.
Let me see if I understand something..... None of the administrators or lawyers at UEA gave any thought to records created by the MRG? We are really expected to believe this??
David Holland -
There is a gentleman by that name on LinkedIn.
David Holland:
There is a Conor McMenemie who pops up in comments on Bob Tisdale's site;
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/about/
Bob may have contact details. Reading his posted comments may be informative.
David Holland: I have emailed Andrew an email address for Conor McMenemie that I found on one of his papers on the internet.
David Holland: I sent further info to Andrew that includes his telephone number.
I am a lawyer in the U.S. There were substantial legal issues at the hearing. If further action is necessary for the release of the information, I have these suggestions. 1. Contact Chris Horner of CEI -- maybe he would have connections to UK lawyers that agree with the FOI action who would be willing to do so for a greatly reduced price or possibly free. Holland and Horner are doing essentially the same thing. 2. Contact James Taylor, a lawyer at the Heartland Institute for same reasons that contacting Horner might be useful. Contact the European Institute for Climate and Energy --- they may have suggestions as to who could help. People on this blog may have much better suggestions for the UK than I have. I would observe that Holland is doing work with the same objective that others in the UK probably have. If he can find lawyers who view his effort in that light, Holland is offering them [the lawyers] an opportunity to help them achieve their goals and Holland is not receiving charity. If Mr. Holland is persistent, I would not be surprised if he would discover that there are UK lawyers that are eager to help him.
Also, one matter that I am concerned about is whether Holland had legal issues he could have raised but didn't. In the U.S., the general rule is that if you fail to raise issues at a lower hearing, you can't raise them later, even if they are possibly correct. The UEA is so disorganized that I would be very surprised if they dotted their "I" and crossed their "T" in creating the so-called "public appointment." I think legal help would be very useful in this area.
I would add that I think that Mr. Holland is doing great work, and I hope that he is successful.
JD
We have this quote from Graham Stringer MP, and many more, as a summary of the shortcomings of the Climategate inquiries in this 2 page article by Andrew Orlowski, (it is recalled, the only reporter present at the Tony Newbury FOI hearing on the 28-gate BBC seminar scandal).
'Stringer said, "We asked them to be independent, and not allow the University to have first sight of the report. The way it's come out is as an UEA inquiry, not an independent inquiry."
Stringer also says they reminded the inquiry to be open - Russell had promised as much - but witness testimony took place behind closed doors, and not all the depositions have been published.'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/
Harold and the Duke,
Thanks with your help I think I 've now spotted the man and from what I see about him it falsifies an an impression that Acton and Russell tried to plant in minds of the Tribunal.
JD Ohio,
Thanks I have been in touch with Chris Horner and he helped me win one UEA case and hopefull that will help on the next case with the Met Office.
Well done David Holland. Your work will have been worthwhile regardless of the outcome of this particular hearing. I get the impression that by doing it you are strengthening the resolve of experts and building the awareness of others about this sorry business. It will all help with the dismantling of the shoddy edifice of climate/CO2 alarmism.
You are welcome, David. Some day I'd like to hear exactly how Acton and Russell mis-characterized Mr. McMenemie.
Your persistence in this is admirable. Anybody who doesn't by now know that this inquiry was a send-up from the beginning is not paying attention. All thanks to you and the main bloggers who've covered this tirelessly, Steve, Andrew and Anthony.
David and others,
Is there a summary somewhere to explain what your recent case was all about?
'If there is one thing worse than being talked about, its not being talked about'..... I an Conor McMenemie. Who wants to know? RSVP mcmenemieconor@hotmail.com
Aha, thanks for that Conor - though (many apologies) it wasn't me that was talking about you. I return to this thread because I finally have some further reflections on the hearing. But, after a full month, what to do with them? I will send to the host and let him decide.