Steve McIntyre: More Climategate Farce

  • Date: 19/01/13
  • Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit

The new information sheds a great deal of light on Acton’s non-existent “investigation”, showing just how misleading Acton’s evidence to the Sci Tech Committee had been.

More news on Acton’s supposed “investigation” of the deletion of emails. New documents show that Acton did not even meet with Briffa or Jones in his supposed “investigation” of the deletion of emails. Acton sent Briffa a letter asking him whether he had “knowingly” deleted emails subject to FOI. Briffa wrote back that he hadn’t. That appears to be the entire extent of Acton’s “investigation”. Sort of like Penn State.

Also see Bishop Hill on this story here.

Acton’s “investigation” came up at David Holland’s FOI hearing on January 15, 2013. Acton was asked about the statements from Briffa and Jones, which had been cited in Acton’s evidence to the SciTech Committee. Acton reportedly told the Tribunal that the statements had been “lost”. Andrew Montford describes the incident as follows:

Acton waxed lyrical about the written statements he had received from Jones and Briffa confirming that they had not deleted emails subject to FOI. These statements, he assured the Tribunal, had been signed in good old-fashioned blue ink. Unfortunately, he went on to explain, they had subsequently been lost.

Previously, in response to David Holland’s FOI for supporting documents (see CA hereand whatdotheyknow here), UEA had stated that they held “no recorded information that confirms the exact dates that the statements were prepared by the Professors”, that they did not hold a copy of the full statement of either Professor Briffa or Professor Jones” and that they held “no recorded information that would indicate whether either statement was signed by either Professor Briffa or Professor Jones”.

Apparently there was some derision from the Tribunal about the statements being “lost”, prompting UEA to actually look for the documents that they had been unable to locate in response to Holland’s request.
.
In a letter to the Tribunal today, the UEA reported that, subsequent to the hearing, on January 17, 2013, Briffa had located an unsigned copy of his statement in a directory which “had not been examined during the course of the University’s previous reasonable search of its systems.” The UEA have now provided a copy of that document, together with a copy of a prior letter from Acton to Briffa, that had prompted Briffa’s letter.

The new information sheds a great deal of light on Acton’s non-existent “investigation”, showing just how misleading Acton’s evidence to the Sci Tech Committee had been.

Full story