Written by Sinclair Davidson,
Catallaxy Files
The University of East Anglia lodged a complaint with the UK Press Complaints Commission against some James Delingpole posts. In this post, for example, he says
The disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method-abusing Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, for example, has granted tame interviews in Nature magazine and the Times presenting himself as a man far more sinned against than sinning.
While here he says
Read the rest here
University of East Anglia v The Daily Telegraph
By Lawrence Solomon,
Financial Post
The University of East Anglia of Climategate fame – scene of the embarrassing emails that disgraced the global warming cause – has once again been embarrassed, this time through a failed attempt to silence one of the UK’s most brilliant – and biting – global warming sceptics.
James Delingpole, a take-no-prisoner blogger with the Daily Telegraph, has been a relentless critic of the university and the professor at the heart of the scandal, Phil Jones. In an attempt to curb Delingpole’s blog posts, the university lodged a complaint with the UK Press Complaints Commission, an independent body. The Commission’s decision, just out, is a crushing repudiation of the university’s attempt to manage dissent that could strike a blow for free speech everywhere.
The Commission summarized the university’s complaints thus: “In particular, the complainants were concerned that the blog posts described Professor Phil Jones as ‘disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing’. They explained that Professor Phil Jones had been exonerated of any dishonesty or scientific malpractice by a series of reviews. They were concerned that a second blog post repeated accusations that had been demonstrated as untrue, concluding that the University’s scientists were ‘untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions’, and a third blog post referred to the scientists’ work as ‘shoddy’ and ‘mendacious’.
