Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« It's voting, Jim, but not as we know it - Josh 220 | Main | Culture and Media Committee on 28gate »
Wednesday
May082013

Orlowski at the IT

Andrew Orlowski has reported on David Holland's most recent visit to the Information Tribunal, this time in an attempt to get details of the IPCC's zero-order draft from the Met Office. Interestingly, DECC appear to have refused to allow their representative on the IPCC to appear:

I actually felt a bit of human sympathy for Stott; you can bet he would have rather been somewhere else, and it transpires that Holland didn't actually want him there at all. Holland had wanted to cross-examine the head of the UK delegation to the IPCC, a Department of Environment and Climate Change official called David Warrilow, head of climate science and international evidence.

The procedural questions under the spotlight are Warrilow's bailiwick, not Stott's, but Holland was refused his man. Stott, we learned, had been pressganged into appearing by the Met Office's lawyers. Stott also had to defend his and allied organisations' refusal to disclose material on a basis - as we shall see - that's highly questionable. No intelligent person should have to waste his own time, or anyone else's time, defending the indefensible.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (16)

Andrew O is a very good journalist..and a nice guy.

May 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

One has to admire David Holland's tenacity. It seems as if this judgement could well go in his favour.

May 8, 2013 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterG.Watkins

Judge Anisa Dhanji was not impressed by the defence's refusal to find someone so very germane to the case to stand up to cross-examination, and demanded that a written statement by Warrilow be included in the record.

She's a credit to the legal system.

May 8, 2013 at 12:25 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

I remember having an email exchange with Peter Stott two or three years ago. I got nowhere beyond "it's all in the IPCC reports".

May 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Easiest way to answer questions you do not want to answer is to send a man without the answers, problem solved.

May 8, 2013 at 2:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterShevva

"One has to admire David Holland's tenacity."

Hear hear.

May 8, 2013 at 2:48 PM | Unregistered Commentermike fowle

Orlowski has told the story in a clear and compelling way. And David Holland has set an example of integrity and dedication for us all. Well done on both counts.

May 8, 2013 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered Commentertheduke

Congratulations David on another sterling effort.

I found this line of defence argument particularly interesting- and galling.

"The Met Office argued back that the ZOD is most precious, and if ZOD material were to be disclosed, counsel argued, there would be grave damage to the UK's "international relations".

This was precisely one of the "red herring" defences used by UEA to refuse releasing the CRUTEM data set. It was rejected then and should not be seen as a legitimate defence this time.

May 8, 2013 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Good point Don. I expect this to be given short shrift by Judge Dhanji.

May 8, 2013 at 4:29 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Good progress.

Good to see a judge was not impressed by the Met Office's pissing about.

David Holland is coming well out of this, and so is Andrew Orlowksi.

Now they are both impressive. Very impressive.

May 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

I too thank them both, for their efforts.

May 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

Funny how 'settled science ' requires so much use of smoke and morrows !

May 8, 2013 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterKNR

I strongly agree with all of the above. In fact, I agree so strongly that I won't even whine about the fact that I get no recognition for reporting this article in Unthreaded at 9:15 AM, as John Shade confirmed later in that same thread [May 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM] <sniffle, sniffle> ;-)

P.S. John, many thanks for your encouragement in my (far less important by several orders of magnitude) battle with the Weaver honkers 'n hawkers at the CBC.

As I have noted in an update to that post a few hours ago, the CBC [not unlike the BBC, come to think of it!] apparently has no qualms whatsoever about being remiss in its "duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely".

May 8, 2013 at 11:22 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

David Holland's tenacity heartens and leavens my innate tendency towards disappointment with homo sapiens

O/T but related: we have not heard from Pat Swords for almost 2 months now. Does anyone know the status of his odyssey, please ?

May 8, 2013 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

Hilary, 11:22,

A number of years ago I managed to get the CBC's attention by writing to the ombudsman.

It had to do with the CBC's National Town Halls which were held in the shadow of the CN Tower and whose audience consisted mainly of U of T's arts faculty staff and students.

The ombudsman (David Bazay at the time) agreed that the program was in no way "National" and did not reflect CBC'a mandate.

Some real cahnge happened.

Worth a try?

May 9, 2013 at 1:44 AM | Unregistered Commenterpolitical junkie

Thanks for the suggestion, political junkie.

I have considered this - and may try it (particularly since I cannot imagine how the Ombudsman could defend Weaver ="Nobel-winning" as the article and video both claim)

But my past experiences (and those of others I know) with the office of CBC Ombudsman is that - except in very rare instances - the (unwritten) role/rule seems to be 'defend our programming and reporters regardless of the truth.'

Not unlike the responses of the (parallel?) U.K.'s BBC Trust, IMHO this is consistently the case wrt contentious issues on which the CBC has already taken a demonstrably biased stance (e.g. Israel and "climate change")

Ironically, it was stumbling across the CBC Ombudsman's appalling responses to those who had written to complain of the network's repeated showing of Gore's AIT (without any acknowledgment of the errors nor any indication that there is another "side" to the story) that set me on the path of due diligence and discovery approx. ten days BC [Before Climategate]

Prior to that, the activities on this "battlefield" hadn't even crossed my radar (not even the hockey-stick, and certainly not the IPCC!)

I was among the brain-washed to whom it did not occur that the steady diet of "global warming this" and "global warming that" fed to us by the obliging MSM was anything but a simple fact of life! I was vaguely aware that there would be "winners and losers" and that Canada would be among the "winners".

But that's probably about as far as my knowledge went, back in those halcyon days of my innocence, ignorance and naiveté :-)

May 9, 2013 at 3:49 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>