UEA Culture of Corruption
Posted by Jeff Condon on February 28, 2010
After reviewing some of the links people have left here, my opinion on this is that Lulu is probably unable to substantiate his accusations. This Parliament comment should probably be ignored until some substantiation is offered.
It appears the Parliamentary submissions are heating up. Reader Curious left a link to a postgrad from UEA who makes very strong accusations. I have to note that in the same post, this person appears to recommend bigger pre-corrupted Commuhagen style government whilst complaining about the obvious corruption of the official UEA organization. It’s saying — ‘Gee this is corrupt followed by lets make more!!!’ I’ll never understand how people get so confused with political wrongthink but that’s the world these days.
Still the point about the culture of UEA appears valid. When Mick Kelly can discuss openly with Phil Jones the clipping of data points from the end of a temperature curve — something is culturally VERY wrong. I try to imagine that back in my college lab days. Hey Doc, these last points from this airfoil test don’t match my hoped for result. I’m going to clip them. Can you even imagine?!! Yet that’s exactly what was written in these emails.
Copied in full below – my highlights:
Memorandum submitted by Lalu Hanuman (CRU 07)
1. As a former postgraduate student of the University of East Anglia [UEA], and a British Citizen, I would like to comment on your committee’s planned review of the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the UEA. In particular the issue of : “Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA, adequate”.
2. The current furore that the UEA has created by it’s falsifying of climate change information, has undermined global climate change action at the recent Copenhagen talks, with some countries relying on these UEA revelations to question the validity of climate change. The resultant catastrophic effect of the UEA’s actions on future generations, cannot be exaggerated, as it has helped delay united action against looming climate change. A robust and thorough transparent inquiry is called for. Sir Muir Russell’s review is inadequate at least as far as point 3 of his remit goes ie “Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations for the release of data”.
3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.
4. Declaration of interests: None.
5. DPA: I give permission for my name, and contact details, to be released.