Darrel Ince gets it

Darrel Ince, a professor of computing at the Open University "gets it".

Many climate scientists have refused to publish their computer programs. I suggest is that this is both unscientific behaviour and, equally importantly, ignores a major problem: that scientific software has got a poor reputation for error.

Daily Mail on Dennis

The Daily Mail has picked up on the Paul Dennis non-story.

Isn't it strange how a comment written here nearly a month ago has suddenly gained legs as an MSM story, and even after it's been pointed out that it's a non-story, the MSM are still following it up.

As an aside, the Mail mentions me, but not Bishop Hill or the book. But they've had no biscuits at all, so this is not unreasonable.

BBC One World podcast

Reader and sometime guest commenter Andrew K has passed this link on - a BBC podcast featuring interviews with David Holland and the acting head of CRU, Peter Liss.

I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but it sounds like good stuff. The programme can be obtained here.

Paul Dennis in the comments

Paul Dennis has clarified his role in the UEA leak in the comments to the previous thread.

He wasn't involved. Everybody calm down!

A mention in the Guardian

The Guardian has a short piece by David Leigh et al on the police investigation into the Climategate emails.  Leigh has picked up on the comment left on this site by UEA's Paul Dennis, a climatologist who has a much less antagonistic approach to sceptics than his colleagues in CRU. Dennis had commented that he had been interviewed by police.

Here's the bit where I get a mention:

Dennis has now posted an account of his police interview at a British website run by a sceptic accountant, Andrew Montford. He told Montford's blog, called Bishop Hill: "They thought I might have some information on the basis that I had sent [Condon] a copy of a paper I had published on isotopes and climate at the southern end of the Antarctic Peninsula … and I had exchanged emails with Steve McIntyre over the leak/hack.

As you can see, they missed out the important bit, namely the words "and the author of a very excellent book on the Hockey Stick affair".

David Leigh interviewed me a couple of weeks back, and I was careful to cram him full of biscuits and the finest filter coffee that money can buy. And not a mention of the book, not a mention!

Chocolate biscuits next time, I think.

Phil Jones speaks

The BBC has the scoop, with an interview of Phil Jones just published on their website.

Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said his results "stand up to scrutiny".

Highlights include a claim that his urban heat island paper has been corroborated by more recent work. Afficionados of Hockey Team rhetoric will recognise a standard line of argument used within the team, namely of claiming that the problems "don't matter".

Jones' claims also do nothing to defend Jones' co-author Wei Chyung Wang from Keenan's accusations of fraud, which rely on Wang's conclusions being impossible to arrive at with the data available.

Update on Feb 2, 2010 by Bishop Hill

There's a press release from UEA here.

Update on Feb 2, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Channel Four carries several interviews with Jones and his replacement as CRU director, Peter Liss.

New climategate timeline

There is a new version of the Climategate timeline out, for the ultimate in AGW-obsessive bedroom chic. It really is an amazing piece of work. Details and downloads here.

East Anglia responds to ICO findings

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Sir Edward Acton, has issued a statement in response to the annoucement by the ICO that the university was in breach of FoI legislation.

The ICO's opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the Act. During this case we have sought the advice of the ICO and responded fully to any requests for information.

Given that Sir Edward seems to be implicated in the breach of FoI legislation himself (at least according to one of the emails) "grave concern" is possibly an understatement.

(H/T Martin Rosenbaum via Steve2 in the comments)

Update on Jan 28, 2010 by Bishop Hill

More here:

• Sir Edward Acton says that the Information Commissioner didn't tell the university of the findings before they went to the press.
• Sir Muir Russell has said that he will announce his panel and work programme shortly.

Update on Jan 27, 2011 by Bishop Hill

This post was wrong on one fact. The Vice Chancellor referred to in the emails as being in on the breaches of FOI was not Acton, but his predecessor.

Lawson lays down the law

Nigel Lawson has written to Sir Muir Russell, setting out his views on the Climategate review that Russell is to head (H/T Anthony Watts). There is much to admire here, and one can hear Lawson's years of experience in the points he makes. Most importantly though is how he closes the letter:

Finally, there is the question of openness and transparency. It has increasingly come to be recognised that, if the findings of an inquiry are to command public confidence, it is necessary for the inquiry to be held for the most part in public (national security being the most obvious cause for exception), with transcripts of each day’s evidence made promptly available. The current Chilcot Iraq inquiry is only the latest in a series of inquiries where this has been the case. It is also the only way of demonstrating fairness towards those under investigation.

This will put huge pressure on Sir Muir, who has spoken in the past of the importance he attaches to carrying the confidence of the sceptic community. Readers may remember the poll conducted here, which suggested strongly that sceptics were divided as to his reliability between those who thought he couldn't be trusted and those who didn't know. With probably the most prominent sceptic in the UK now asking that he hold the hearings in public, it will surely be hard for him to resist.

Rosenbaum on no prosecutions

The BBC's FoI correspondent, Martin Rosenbaum, has written an interesting piece on the "no prosecutions" story. Read it here.

No prosecutions story hits MSM

The news that there will be no prosecutions over CRU's breaches of the Freedom of Information Act has hit the MSM, with both the Times and the BBC covering the story with some prominence.

It's interesting to note that the BBC is now referring to them as "leaked" files, as is the Met Office's Vicky Pope, who has a commentary piece in the Times, which comes across as a remarkably disingenuous piece of spin, repeating the line that the temperature data sets are independent despite the fact that it is known that this is not true.

Update on Jan 28, 2010 by Bishop Hill

Guardian's take on the story here. They're still calling it a hack.

Why do they want to know?

Via a correspondent, I have obtained a copy of the form that the police are sending round to sceptics as part of their investigation of the climategate leaks. Some of the questions being asked are pretty surprising:

18) What is your stance on climate change?

19)  Are you a current or past member of any political or environmental organisation/ group? Details:

20) Do you contribute to, participate in, or administer any internet based website, forum, blog, etc.  including any related to climate change? Details:

Is it just me, or is this rather sinister from a civil liberties point of view? I simply can't see that contributing to a blog is relevant to the inquiry. One can't help but get the impression of innocent people having police files being built on them, simply because the forces of law and order (in the shape of NDET) haven't got anything better to do.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the offence being investigated is described in the form as, variously, a theft, a leak and a breach. But never a hack.

One thing we can say about the hacker/leaker is that he/she was possessed of some relatively sophisticated IT skills, so it's also interesting to see that the police seem to have no interest in whether any of the people they are quizzing have this skillset.

Very odd.

ICO believes FoI offences committed at CRU

Jonathan Leake at the Sunday Times has discovered that the Information Commissioner believes that offences were committed under the Freedom of Information Act at CRU. As readers here know, the ICO is not able to take any action because there is apparently a six month time-bar on summary offences such as these.

The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland's FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act.

The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone. The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands - we do not make it.

Intruigingly, there does seem to be a hint of a possibility of action under the data protection act.

We will also be studying the investigation reports (by Lord Russell [sic] and Norfolk Police), and we will then consider what regulatory action, if any, should then be taken under the Data Protection Act.

(Source-press release, so no link).

Leak or hack?

We still don't know if the emails were leaked or hacked - I've emailed Norfolk Constabulary to see if they have managed to get to the bottom of what exactly it is they are investigating. Given that they are treating this as a serious incident with specialists brought in to assist them, one would think that after two months they would have at least ascertained what it is they are investigating.

However, there is some new evidence, of sorts. A couple of commenters have noted interesting opinions on the issue. In the last twenty four hours, both Phil Willis, the chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and Mike Hulme, professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia, have referred to "leaked emails".

It's not proof, but these two men are in a better position than most of us to know which it is.

BBC impartiality

The BBC's flagship Today programme featured an environmentalist presenter, John Humphrys, interviewing an environmentalist, Tony Juniper and an activist environmental scientist, Mike Hulme.

Nobody to put the sceptic point of view.

Again.