Jones told Hume that his comments had been “tongue in cheek” and that the agreements in question were “not really confidentiality agreements” – an astonishing statement given the line taken with respect to FOI requesters. Jones went on to say that “there is never any obligation on CRU or UEA” arising from these agreements which are “generally about agreeing to work together on something”.Furthermore:
The Climategate 2.0 emails clearly show that they were knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the FOI/EIR act at the time that they made the 2009 refusals. The problem wasn’t a lack of training. It is clear (from their conduct) that none of the parties considered that there would be any consequences from making untrue assertions (even recklessly) as part of an FOI/EIR refusal either under the Act, under academic misconduct codes or professionally. Nor did making untrue or misleading or evasive statements seem to present a moral dilemma to any of the parties, when such statements were made to perceived adversaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment