Tenacious sceptic clings to Climategate

There is no question about the fact that Mr. Holland is correct, that UEA did, in fact, violate Freedom Of Information law, to deny Mr. Holland access to that information. That was one of the sins revealed in the Climategate emails. Here's Phil Jones, who was at that time head of the UEA's Climate Resarch Unit, brazenly describing his criminal deeds <b><i>in an email to the UEA's Information Compliance Manager</i>(!!)</b> on Wed Dec 3 13:31:06 2008: <blockquote>date: Wed Dec 3 13:31:06 2008 from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" <David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk> Dave, Do I understand it correctly - if he doesn't pay the £10 we don't have to respond? With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I'm not wasting my time going through these. Cheers Phil</blockquote> You can see why the Institute of Physics concluded that: <blockquote>"The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change."</blockquote>