If Monbiot wants to call for Jones’ resignation (granted he did retract it) I think hes entitled to.

I feel that the percieved need for climate scientists present a monolithic view (lest their disagreements give ‘deniers’ ammunition) is sifleing exactly the kind of rigerous debate needed at the moment.

Let the fools chatter, there is no way of stopping them at the moment. Pussy footing around difficult questions because people who disagree with you might sieze upon them isn’t going to help the science.

“pitched the Climategate story as being a failure of the UEA Communications Office to respond quickly”

as you suggest.

it’s possible, I suppose, I have talked and written lots on this. But it’s certainly not my predominant view. Can you provide a link to my comments to that effect?

cheers
David Adam
The Guardian

[ NOTE FROM JOABBESS.COM : I shall not waste your time or my time in heated dispute over this. I distinctly recall your colleague James Randerson giving this opinion at the Frontline Club, and it's on a podcast, but I have no clear recollection of you yourself uttering the accusation, so I have struck your name from the list of "those journalists blaming the UEA public relations department for creating the Climategate pseudo-scandal by giving a non-robust response". ]

“the funds and forces arraigned against Science”

There is no conspiracy against science – but there is enormous concern about dodgy science and dodgy dossiers.

Your supposition that the CRU were faultless is quite ridiculous.

We have the Information commissioner stating that only the silly 6 month statute of limitations stopped the UoEA and the CRU from being prosecuted.

We had the first two enguiries stating that the work was slipshod, not well managed and not up to standard re statistical analysis

Now we have Muir Russell stating that the Hockey stick graph is “misleading”.

On top of which we have today the Information Commissioner ruling that David Holland’s EIR request – the one that was so central to the Climategate affair.

The Information Commissioner has set a wider rather than a narrower scope on EIR by ruling that information need not have a direct effect on the environment for it to be subject to the regulations.

UEA have been found to be in breach of the regulations.

Why are a small band of Alarmists so intent on propping up and idolising those whose behaviour has now clearly been seen to be substandard in even laymans terms, let alone the higher standards normaly expected of a true scientist.