Seen elsewhere
The calendar

Click to buy!

Support

 

Twitter
Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Fulmination in Oz | Main | A sting in the tail »
Wednesday
May092012

'Ello, 'ello, 'ello

From Scottish Sceptic:

So, it is with deep regret that I feel I have:

  • Informed the Norfolk police of a likely crime at the UEA.
  • Asked my MP (Jo Swinson) to inform the appropriate parliamentary authorities that they appear to have been lied to.
  • Written to Sir Muir Russell (by way of the judicial appointments board) making him aware of these allegations.
  • Initiated a complaint with the UK civil service against Sir John Beddington.

Interesting. Particularly the first point. I wonder what crime is alleged?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (27)

Fraud?

May 9, 2012 at 8:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

The crime is being found out........

May 9, 2012 at 8:15 AM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

Lying to Parliament?

May 9, 2012 at 8:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

This is the way to go. Enough of the lies and obfuscation, get it put into a court of law on every occasion possible and science will then take an open course. The arguments that academics should not be subject to law because of some misplaced idea of academic freedom is just an excuse to hide behind bad science and manipulated data. Science should be above such chicanery. If it is publicly funded, science put the science into the public domain with method and data and let other scientists improve or just prove your science.

May 9, 2012 at 8:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Whale

Read the comments, SS says at the end that he's reported the CRU for lying about the use of the Yamal data.

"In light of the evidence I have seen I feel that I have to inform the police of this matter.
As such further commenting is being disabled."

I'm not sure there is anything on the statute book that would carry the day for telling porkies about a scientific paper. If there is then our jails should be full of "scientists" of all colours. Unless it is there and like hanging for stealing a sheep is being ignored.

May 9, 2012 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Yes, much as Id' like this to see its day in court, I think the chances of the CPS moving on this have the same probability as mydog not posting about mistakes made in backradiation somewhere later in this thread.

May 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

On a more serious point, it is clear to me that the CRU has been pork pieing through it's teeth, not jsut on this issue but on the death threats issue, and the real story is why other scientists, right across the board have stayed schtum in the face of what, to a lot of people, is clearly scientific malfeasance.

Unless, of course, it is common practice in science to produce a paper having far reaching political and social impacts in its conclusions and then refuse to provide the data for inspection. Would be interesting if this is being done in medicine.

May 9, 2012 at 9:01 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Hi BigYin: BH doesn't like it and he's the boss...

May 9, 2012 at 9:20 AM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose

I would like to see Doug Keenan take a look at this and maybe expand on his allegations of fraud. His original paper can be viewed here:

http://www.informath.org/

http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf

May 9, 2012 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

Bodging with intent.

May 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

It would be Fraud if it could be proved that data for a grant application(s) was manipulated/withheld to increase the chances of that application(s) being funded.

It would also be a case for immediate dismissal should a member of academic staff be shown to have "brought the university into disrepute" by his or her (public) behaviour.

May 9, 2012 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Given the actions by UEA, I think the "brought the university into disrepute" does not apply.

May 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos

Chuckles:"Lying to Parliament?"

I believe that's the exclusive preserve of politicians.

May 9, 2012 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

The charge that stands out is "Misconduct in Public Office" - Google is your friend - look for guidance for prosecutors. I think anybody reading said guidance would see a slam dunk .. clang! for UEA in this matter.

Nip down to the local magistrate's court and lay the charge yourself.

If properly framed and evidence is presented - it must be dealt with and investigated


Norfolk Police will treat this complaint like ummm... Kryptonite :-) and lock it in a lead lined box and bury it just like before.

Do it yourself :-)

May 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM | Registered Commentertomo

From the hit musical Chicago (well almost)

Lawyer Billy Flynn: “Briffa, you got nothing to worry about. It’s all a circus, kid. A tree-ring circus. These trials – the whole world – all show business. But kid, you’re working with a star, the biggest!"

Billy sings:

“Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em

How can they hear the truth above the roar?

Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!"

May 9, 2012 at 10:29 AM | Registered Commentermangochutney

Fruit-Picking without a licence ?

May 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

hard core recidivists

May 9, 2012 at 11:59 AM | Registered Commenterjferguson

Splicing without due care and attention?

May 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception

May 9, 2012 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterPH

Perhaps the best charge would be one of conspiracy. It would work best if Big Oil or BigCoal or BigGas was to step up to the plate and point out (absolutely correctly) that the activities of CRU were specifically and intentionally designed to damage their business interests.

But since BigCoal is now LittleCoal in the UK and was asleep when last seen, and since BigOil and BigGas are both apparently in bed with these fraudsters, I can't see that happening.

Not for the first time, I find myself thinking it would be good to have BigKoch.

May 9, 2012 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

Scottish Sceptic makes a hugely valid point in his full article, about 'science' pushing engineering to one side - and as a retired engineer I have spent the last forty years trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to people with glazed expressions, the importance of engineering to every single aspect of our daily lives..
In the context of our particular field of common interest, the engineering realities of CCS, offshore wind farms, 'supergrids' and the like are just minor irritations to our political servants who think that if you chuck enough taxpayers' money at a problem it will be solved....

May 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

"a likely crime at the UEA."

What, only one?

May 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

It would be interesting to know whether a UEA pension fund exists, and what investment strategy it follows.

If it has the BBC-type green investment strategy, then all sorts of financial conspiracy crimes become fairly trivial to prove.

May 9, 2012 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDead Dog Bounce

geronimo @ 10:07,

SS specifically says he has written to his MP about just that, and lying to Parliament or to a select committee of Parliament, is an offence. (Which has not been used the 1600s or so, but is apparently regarded as 'Contempt of the House')

May 9, 2012 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterChuckles

The conspiracy law is always value for money. How about: Conspiracy to comit fraud? (Based on Climategate.)

Then there is always: The dog ate my homework with malice aforethought!

May 9, 2012 at 8:35 PM | Unregistered Commentergraphicconception

am amazed that MDGNN is here twice without talking about back radiation in an irrelevant manner

May 9, 2012 at 10:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

I have sometimes wondered if there are grounds for Judicial Review of some of the Taxes which have been imposed in the name of CAGW. I have a feeling that more than a few readers here will remember the IR35 judicial review in 2000, which sadly failed. If we could challenge a tax by JR then, it could possibly be done now. The main problem is that it costs a year's income from a turbine (at least)!

I think it was the judge (Burton) who knocked us back who found against the Govt regarding Al Gore's fantasy production.

As other people have noted Norfolk plod aren't going to touch this. Another alternative may be a private prosecution, but then the DPP would probably take it over and immediately drop it.

May 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlec J

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>