Supplementary Memorandum Submitted by David Holland (UEA Reviews
01B)
TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE BY THE RUSSELL REVIEW
MY EARLIER
CORRESPONDENCE
I regret the need to write again to your Committee
with a further and far more serious allegation of deliberate misconduct
by the Review Team looking into the leaked UEA emails chaired
by Sir Muir Russell. This arises from what was released by UEA
on 19 November 2010 in response to a Freedom of Information request
that I had made on 22 October 2010, shortly before your last evidence
hearing at which Sir Muir claimed, in relation to my submission:
"But I think the substance of the issues
has all been dealt with. The team went into that pretty carefully."
With my letter to the Committee of 3 September
2010, I had provided a copy of the letter of complaint, which
I had sent to Sir Muir Russell. His Review had refused to publish
my submission to it, citing legal concerns, which they refused
to detail beyond, "as it makes references to, and comments
upon, a large number of individuals". The review also refused
to publish an alternate summary letter because I would not allow
it to redact the two paragraphs which, without mentioning any
names, summarised my allegations.
Sir Muir responded on 6 September 2010 indicating
that he would reply to my letter on return from his holiday—but
has not. In my letter to Sir Muir I had pointed out that despite
his Review insisting that, "there would be a significant
risk of legal action if your submission is published in whole
or in part on the Review website", a speciously edited part
of it was indeed published at the Review website as the Annex
to the reply of Professor Briffa and Dr Osborn (B&O) to a
letter from Professor Boulton dated 6 May 2010. B&O's reply
is available here:
http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/6 May Briffa
Osborn response.pdf
My original submission is available here:
http://tinyurl.com/2656ppl
THE B&O ANNEX
AND ITS
FALSEHOOD
Although the recent release from UEA shows that
B&O's reply to Boulton was emailed to Russell, Boulton and
Hardie on 19 May 2007, the "properties" of the pdf file
at the Review website indicate that it was modified 10 minutes
before midday on 7 July 2010 and was, therefore, unlikely to have
been published before the Review Report. B&O's evidence is
incorrectly referenced in the Report of the Review and in its
byzantine evidence pages. I only came across it by accident.
Less than a quarter of my submission is shown
in B&O's Annex. The background context and evidence is almost
wholly omitted effectively leaving only the bare allegations,
to which unsurprisingly B&O's rebuttal seems reasonable to
the uninformed. In doing so B&O make a significant statement
relating to my submission which is false and which, if they had
access to my original submission—as Sir Muir Russell told
your Committee they did—they would know was false. They
say of a reference in my paragraph 45 to a sentence "put
in parentheses above", that my statement "it is in error".
It is not in error. The error—if that is what it is—is
that my previous paragraph is omitted as anyone could see from
the paragraph numbers. Clearly the "rigour and honesty"
of B&O, as the Review Report puts it, is in considerable doubt.
THE "RIGOUR
AND HONESTY"
OF THE
RUSSELL REVIEW
If B&O's Annex casts doubt on the rigour
and honesty of its authors what does this say for the Review itself?
I watched and heard Sir Muir tell you "the team went into
that pretty carefully". I also emailed my concerns to the
two Review Team members, who are Fellows of the Institution to
which I have belonged for nearly 50 years, and are bound by a
Rule of Conduct to "exemplify professional behaviour generally
and specifically in their relationships with the Institution,
its employees and their fellow members." The only response
I have elicited is:
"I can confirm that all submissions were
read by all the Review Team's members."
Clearly if we are to believe the Review Team
they would know how comprehensive my submission to them was, and
how inconsequential were those parts of it to which B&O responded.
Had all of them read both the original and the emasculated version
in B&O's Annex, as it is claimed, could they all have failed
to notice that Paragraph 44 was missing from B&O's version
and that B&O's response to paragraph 45 was untrue and grossly
unfair to me?
UEA FOI_10-122; EIR_10-16
There were obviously unanswered questions and
having had little success with the Review team I asked a number
of questions of the University of East Anglia, who I am pleased
to say now seem to be handling information requests in accordance
with best practice even if they do not always release all that
I think they should. The request and their responses are available
here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/outstanding_questions_regarding#incoming-131775
WHO AT
UEA SAW MY
ORIGINAL SUBMISSION?
Among other things, I asked UEA to tell me who
at the University had access to the submission that I had made
to the Russell Review. You will recall that Sir Muir Russell told
you:
"Yes, and you will see that Mr Holland's
recent comments do acknowledge that in fact Briffa and colleagues
saw his submission and commented on it."
From this one might have concluded, as one would
indeed have expected, that the Russell Review would have sent
it to the UEA individuals named, Briffa 43 times, Jones 32 times,
and Osborn 7 times. I would also have expect the Vice Chancellor
to have insisted upon seeing exactly what his staff were being
accused of.
Initially UEA responded:
"The University never received directly
a copy of your submission to the Russell Review. We only had access
to the information included with Prof. Boulton's letter to Keith
Briffa."
BOULTON'S
ANNEX SHOWS
THAT B&O HAD
MY SUBMISSION
I had also requested a copy of the of the Annex
that had been sent by Professor Boulton for Briffa to answer.
UEA disclosed it and it is available here:
http://tinyurl.com/35flw4j
Although Boulton's Annex contained exactly the
same text character as the B&O's Annex, it did not contain
any of my paragraph numbers or references, whereas in B&O's
Annex, all the references and, with one minor error, all the paragraph
numbers were correctly shown. This alone meant that it was impossible
for B&O not to have had access to my submission and, no doubt
after noticing the Internet discussions on the matter, UEA issued
a correction:
"This is incorrect due to a misunderstanding
on my part. While the University itself did not receive a copy
of your submission from Muir Russell, Professor Keith Briffa acquired
a full copy of your submission by way of a request made to you
by a third party."
THE RUSSELL
REVIEW EMASCULATED
MY SUBMISSION
Thus, and assuming that Boulton's letter to
Briffa was copied to his fellow team members, the entire Russell
Review team were aware of and acquiesced in the emasculation of
my submission. Recall that the Review had told me that it might
face legal action if my "submission is published in whole
or in part on the Review website". Recall also that Sir Muir
had told you:
"The only issue, I think, turns on whether
the full submission was appropriate to publish, given some elements
of the terms in which it was written."
It may of course be that the Review had promised
someone that my submission would not be published and indeed if
you examine Boulton's Annex it does not look remotely like mine.
In addition to the most important evidence being missing, being
less than a quarter in length, and stripped of paragraph numbers
and references, in Boulton's Annex seven of my paragraph breaks
had been removed and one, not in my original submission, had been
added. This could not conceivably be accidental and I can not
think of a proper reason for having done this or for the other
team members to have agreed to it. It is no exaggeration to say
that it is scandalous.
B&O PARTLY RESTORE
MY SUBMISSION
A question of some importance is whether B&O
added into Boulton's Annex the paragraph numbers and references
that had been stripped out and put back the paragraph breaks to
where they originally were—or removed from my original submission
exactly what Boulton had. Of the two approaches I think the latter
is easier, and would also answer the other question of why on
earth would they want to do it, given the "get out of jail
free card" that Boulton's Annex was. The first paragraph
of page 2 of B&O's evidence submission also suggests the latter.
The questions are important, as is why would
Boulton have spent the time to mess about with the paragraphs
anyway? The answer may lie in the only paragraph break that B&O
do not correct in their version of Boulton's version of my submission.
In paragraph 42, not only did Boulton remove the paragraph break
at the end of it in my text, but also the double quote mark (")
that began the next. Why this would be of great advantage to B&O's
reply is explained in detail in a document in which I have identified,
within my full submission, that text upon which B&O were invited
to comment, and added B&O's rebuttal comments and my replies
and observations. It is available at:
http://tinyurl.com/374ncm4
B&O'S RESPONSES
IN FULL
CONTEXT WITH
MY REPLIES
When B&O's responses to my emasculated submission
are considered in the context of my original submission and my
responses to them are taken into account, I believe most objective
observers will conclude that neither B&O nor the Russell Review
have begun to answer the allegation that I made.
CONCLUSION
I feel sure that many who witnessed the public
evidence sessions you and your predecessor Committee held on Climategate
are left with the feeling, as my MP Mr Boswell, hypothetically,
put it that "something fishy was going on". The reputation
of UEA, and more importantly British Science, and even more importantly
the British tradition of natural justice will not be restored
so long as the Russell Review remains free from the criticism
of your Committee for its scandalous lack of rigour and honesty
in dealing with my submission.
David Holland MIET
9 December 2010
| 
