Ö÷²¥´óÐã

It was obvious as soon as you picked up the report - Professor Phil Jones was in the clear.

The , however, was not.

It was heavily criticised for a culture of non-disclosure.

Phil Willis, the outgoing Chairman of the called their behaviour
"reprehensible" and said Professor Jones had been made a scapegoat.

The MPs said Professor Jones had done nothing wrong except send, on his own admission, "appalling e-mails", just the same as the rest of us.

The committee recommended that the University review its policy on Freedom of Information requests.

And it would like to see an official statement from the Information Commissioner on whether a breach of the Freedom of Information Act was committed.

Although the committee said Professor Jones should have been more open, the blame should lie with the University who assisted the in blocking the disclosure of information.

Professor Jones' actions, in not disclosing his methodology and computer codes, were said to be in line with common practice.

But the committee called for this to change because there is "no more important science going on on the planet at the moment."

The MPs hoped the report will help correct some of the hysteria surrounding Professor Jones and the University of East Anglia, that almost derailed the Copenhagen summit.

I certainly hope so, for Professor Jones' sake, who is is a shadow of his former self.

This was only the first hurdle. The MPs were looking at whether there's been a cover up - there hasn't, they conclude.

Now the UEA awaits the results of the independent Inquiry it set up, headed by Sir Muir Russell. It's expected to publish its report this spring.

And there's a separate inquiry into the actual science, headed by Lord Oxburgh, which is hoping to report as soon as possible.

Not soon enough, I expect, for Professor Jones.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?