Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

"Climategate" Enquiry

Recommended Posts

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_cru_inquiry.cfm

I have started a new topic for this, as I think it is extremely important......an awful lot hinges on it.

I shall now go and read the announcement in full and will come back with any particularly pertinent snippets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's but the tip of the iceberg, according to this excellent article of yesterday which implicates the US government as well: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

(Thanks to Joe B'stardi's blog for the link).

PS - maybe this requires it's own new thread? It's relevant to this one but is a biggie in its own right. Mods can decide!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it will be a three-pronged affair.

One prong to investigate the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research.

Second prong to investigate the adequacy of the Independent Review instigated by the UEA.

Third prong to investigate the independence of other international data sets.

It certainly seems to cover all of the areas where doubts have been expressed in some ever-growing quarters. I hope it will not become a whitewash, as have many other enquiries. Having said that, I have noticed, over the last few months, that the "establishment" is beginning to rebel against our present government ( a whole new thread beckons there :unsure: ) and so I am a bit more hopeful than I would have been, say, a year ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be sure that unless at least 20 or 30 scientists are burnt at the stake, it'll be called a whitewash :shok:

Though I find it very worrying that any such investigation is deemed necessary. Still, who wants freedom of speech and opinion? We should all say and think only what we're told!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be sure that unless at least 20 or 30 scientists are burnt at the stake, it'll be called a whitewash 8)

Though I find it very worrying that any such investigation is deemed necessary. Still, who wants freedom of speech and opinion? We should all say and think only what we're told!

Hehe!!

I will patiently wait in anticipation of the outcome of this enquiry! I hold my own personal judgement but i shall keep that reserved for now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest report on this from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi?CMP=AFCYAH

"The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest report on this from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi?CMP=AFCYAH

"The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act."

Jethro, day after day a few people, the same people (these people read certain blogs) send you the same FOI requests. They cost time and money - a lot of both - a waste of tax payer hard earned taxes you might think. Next day more FOI requests and the next, day after day, FOI requests. And then, next day, what? More FOI requests from motived people, politically motived people, a few people who are the FOI equivalents of Terminators - they will never stop, and nothing, NOTHING, nothing you reply with is ever good enough for them.

Wouldn't you get sick of it? I would, I'm sure you would as well.

That is the point.

Edit: the FOI system is being abused by the people who use it to harass scientists. That is what there should be an enquiry about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting to see what Smith actually said - but it appears he's referring to a possible interpretation of certain emials, rather than any actual refusual to provide data by the CRU - data which for the most part is clearly excluded from the FOIA ...... The act also makes reference to vexatious requests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jethro, day after day a few people, the same people (these people read certain blogs) send you the same FOI requests. They cost time and money - a lot of both - a waste of tax payer hard earned taxes you might think. Next day more FOI requests and the next, day after day, FOI requests. And then, next day, what? More FOI requests from motived people, politically motived people, a few people who are the FOI equivalents of Terminators - they will never stop, and nothing, NOTHING, nothing you reply with is ever good enough for them.

Wouldn't you get sick of it? I would, I'm sure you would as well.

That is the point.

Edit: the FOI system is being abused by the people who use it to harass scientists. That is what there should be an enquiry about!

Accepted but there are ways of addressing that problem. If there were that many requests on a daily basis then they should have been directed to one person for them to deal with - delegation. The MD of a company doesn't deal with the mundane running of his company, he deals with the big stuff and has staff to do the daily grind. There's no logical reason why the same couldn't apply here. Data entered onto a central system, accessed by admin staff to distribute the requested information to all concerned. It's not difficult.

If there were vexatious requests, I would imagine that's a result of many previous requests being ignored or denied; how often does ignoring a situation make it go away? A repeated lack of response to requests for information and if it's to be believed, an outright refusal is only ever going to lead to accusations of hiding stuff. Justified or not, that's human nature; a modicum of common sense could have avoided this whole thing happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepted but there are ways of addressing that problem. If there were that many requests on a daily basis then they should have been directed to one person for them to deal with - delegation. The MD of a company doesn't deal with the mundane running of his company, he deals with the big stuff and has staff to do the daily grind. There's no logical reason why the same couldn't apply here. Data entered onto a central system, accessed by admin staff to distribute the requested information to all concerned. It's not difficult.

If there were vexatious requests, I would imagine that's a result of many previous requests being ignored or denied; how often does ignoring a situation make it go away? A repeated lack of response to requests for information and if it's to be believed, an outright refusal is only ever going to lead to accusations of hiding stuff. Justified or not, that's human nature; a modicum of common sense could have avoided this whole thing happening.

I suspect the scientists involved, being good people, wanted to help with people's genuine questions (which, in a way they are). But, what common sense could you apply to a never ending flood of pointless make work? Stop doing science and instead spend their time dealing with a mountain of FOI requests?

Indeed, if they had delegated (which might be the common sense thing to do) then next thing would be people moaning about climate scientists having so much public money they could employ people just to deal with FOI requests doh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really saying there are no admin staff?

Ring a local council, ask about a planning application or tree preservation order or conservation orders and an endless list of other information, it's on a data base, accessed by admin staff. You don't need to talk to a tree officer, building control officer, planning officer etc, etc, etc, they're off doing what they're paid to do. Admin staff distribute information. They also do innumerable other jobs too, like answer the phone, type off letters, deal with the post blah, blah, blah. Scientists and scientific institutions are no different, the UEA have admin staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really saying there are no admin staff?

Ring a local council, ask about a planning application or tree preservation order or conservation orders and an endless list of other information, it's on a data base, accessed by admin staff. You don't need to talk to a tree officer, building control officer, planning officer etc, etc, etc, they're off doing what they're paid to do. Admin staff distribute information. They also do innumerable other jobs too, like answer the phone, type off letters, deal with the post blah, blah, blah. Scientists and scientific institutions are no different, the UEA have admin staff.

Yes, of course they do (and fwiw I know our local tree officer who is he tells us, very busy all the time just trying to look after his trees let alone deal with paper work - why they have tree wardens like the wife and me...). But, is the public sector awash with money or facing deep cuts? And, is it really necessary to employ people to go through repeated, tedius and time wasting FOI requests aimed soley at discrediting named scientists? Maybe it is, but I think it's a big waste of hard earned taxpayers money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really saying there are no admin staff?

They also do innumerable other jobs too, like answer the phone, type off letters, deal with the post blah, blah, blah. Scientists and scientific institutions are no different, the UEA have admin staff.

Maybe the scientists are too preoccupied with opening the mail,making the tea,putting up the Xmas trimmings etc to be be troubled by something as trifling and beneath them such as a FOI request? Look,they are all important jobs and something has to give,right? I don't have admin staff but if I was suspected of 'fiddling the system',for example, I'd have to produce income and expenditure details to back up my claims,presumably. Or would a quick "honest I'm not fibbing" suffice? I'm not out to nobble the scientists involved (honest,Dev),but something of the gravitas of 'Climategate' can't be swept under the carpet. I mean y'never know... the outcome might,just might 'turn' me,and lord knows how many others. Wouldn't that be a turn up for the books? On the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the scientists are too preoccupied with opening the mail,making the tea,putting up the Xmas trimmings etc to be be troubled by something as trifling and beneath them such as a FOI request? Look,they are all important jobs and something has to give,right? I don't have admin staff but if I was suspected of 'fiddling the system',for example, I'd have to produce income and expenditure details to back up my claims,presumably. Or would a quick "honest I'm not fibbing" suffice? I'm not out to nobble the scientists involved (honest,Dev),but something of the gravitas of 'Climategate' can't be swept under the carpet. I mean y'never know... the outcome might,just might 'turn' me,and lord knows how many others. Wouldn't that be a turn up for the books? On the other hand...

Wake me up before you go go... :wallbash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes anyone think the FOI requests didn't go to an admin dept at the CRU?

The fact that scientists were aware such requests were being made (in an increasingly vexatious manner) doesn't mean they themselves were receiving/dealing with them!

And would a climate scientist even be aware of the wording of the FOIA? To know, for example, that most of the requests being made were excluded?

I do know that those making the requests - and most of those subsequently discussing them - have little or know knowledge of what the Act says!

These arguments do amuse me though: like 2 mice arguing over whether a tiger tank or a sherman tank would be best for crushing a cat.

Actually, a better analogy: it's like I had a dream last night, but I've not given you any details. And now you're arguing over whose interpretation of the meaning of my dream (which you know nothing about) is correct :wallbash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the freedom of information officials never used the word flouted then.......

Nobody has been prosecuted under the act.

Nobody has been found guilty of anything. (Although we did find out that climate scientists are human, and just like the valet boy parking a car who's just been shouted at publically by his employer, he's talked to his friends and had a moan.)

Worth setting up a comission for I am sure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the freedom of information officials never used the word flouted then.......

I don't know. Did he? I haven't spoken to him nor have I seen any written statement from him. I don;t know to what request he is referring, if indeed he is referring to any specific request.

As for the rest, we don't how many FOI requests were made, by whom, when, for what info; we do not know to whom they were addressed nor who dealt with them; we do not know which if were refused and obviously since we do not know their nature we cannot say whether or not such refusal was legitimate.

All we know is that at least some of the data that some imply was requested was definitely excluded from the FOI.

And despite knowing that we know almost know facts, we argue over who is right.

Meanwhile, maybe someone can tell me who killed the person near the bridge? Obviously I can't tell you how they died, when or which bridge. But I'm sure you'll spend a few weeks arguing over whether or not it was murder or self defence :D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/lord-lawson-calls-for-cru-inquiry-to-be-held-in-public/#more-15788

Just a quickie as I have to go to work.

Here is a letter written by Lord Lawson (is that Nigel Lawson?) of the Global Warming Policy Federation to the chap who is conducting the Climategate Enquiry.

In it he requests that many other aspects are included in the enquiry. The letter is self-explanatory and I really have to go!

I shall give it more attention in the morning, but thought I'd just link to it here before I tootle off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jethro, day after day a few people, the same people (these people read certain blogs) send you the same FOI requests. They cost time and money - a lot of both - a waste of tax payer hard earned taxes you might think. Next day more FOI requests and the next, day after day, FOI requests. And then, next day, what? More FOI requests from motived people, politically motived people, a few people who are the FOI equivalents of Terminators - they will never stop, and nothing, NOTHING, nothing you reply with is ever good enough for them.

Wouldn't you get sick of it? I would, I'm sure you would as well.

That is the point.

Edit: the FOI system is being abused by the people who use it to harass scientists. That is what there should be an enquiry about!

Do you have any proof that day after day these requests were sent? by whome or are you just speculating and falsely accusing the good name of sites that disagree with you.

I prefer to hear the official report, which would surely report such things, before convicting anyone without cause.

This is the very worst of the denialist movement against natural warming!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any proof that day after day these requests were sent? by whome or are you just speculating and falsely accusing the good name of sites that disagree with you.

Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. You only need to dip into WUWT or CA or read about the persistence of people like David Holland or 'Bishop Hill' to see organisation like CRU have been bombarded by FOI requests.

I prefer to hear the official report, which would surely report such things, before convicting anyone without cause.

This is the very worst of the denialist movement against natural warming!

:whistling:

Erm, nice try but where have I denied anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. You only need to dip into WUWT or CA or read about the persistence of people like David Holland or 'Bishop Hill' to see organisation like CRU have been bombarded by FOI requests.

So, please can you give me evidence that day after day they have done this... even day after day for a week? or one day a week for a month?

Sorry, but you are using the very same blogs you discredit at every chance to defend yourself.. crazy...

Erm, nice try but where have I denied anything?

You appear to have denied that there is any alternative.

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, please can you give me evidence that day after day they have done this... even day after day for a week? or one day a week for a month?

Sorry, but you are using the very same blogs you discredit at every chance to defend yourself.. crazy...

Well, they might be lying, but I think when they reports and talk about FOI requests that they are telling the truth. Perhaps I'm being naive to think such blogs tell the truth about such things? But it seems to me the main reason places like WU and CA exist is to harass, I mean question, scientists?

You appear to have denied that there is any alternative.

Steve.

Where? Please can you give me evidence where I've done that? I think science has got it right, but I don't rule out it being wrong. Me thinking it unlikely science has it wrong isn't denial there is an alternative, just me telling it how I see it. Would you have me not tell it how I see it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they might be lying, but I think when they reports and talk about FOI requests that they are telling the truth. Perhaps I'm being naive to think such blogs tell the truth about such things? But it seems to me the main reason places like WU and CA exist is to harass, I mean question, scientists?

Where? Please can you give me evidence where I've done that? I think science has got it right, but I don't rule out it being wrong. Me thinking it unlikely science has it wrong isn't denial there is an alternative, just me telling it how I see it. Would you have me not tell it how I see it?

Well Devonian if they had actually been open and transparent we would'nt be in this posistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they might be lying, but I think when they reports and talk about FOI requests that they are telling the truth. Perhaps I'm being naive to think such blogs tell the truth about such things? But it seems to me the main reason places like WU and CA exist is to harass, I mean question, scientists?

I think we both want the same thing, honesty. I don't often post, but always read. I think there is a problem, where I have read, a few from here rip apart any notion of dishonesty when leveled at a scientist without trial and evidence. But it is fair game to refer to reports and talk from blogs when it discredits a denialist blog or site, or even more rediculously can defend a scientist.

Where? Please can you give me evidence where I've done that? I think science has got it right, but I don't rule out it being wrong. Me thinking it unlikely science has it wrong isn't denial there is an alternative, just me telling it how I see it. Would you have me not tell it how I see it?

I don't think that science has got it wrong, I simply can't beleive that. But politics and policy has. There is no reason to break the FOI law, and certainly no reason to use the same sources accused of attacking it, to also defend the accused when there is equally no evidence to support the notion they caused the law to be broken.

I do love to read everything everyone writes, please carry on.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it only be possible to harass if you asked the same thing over and over again?

I might be odd but if I want information, I ask for it. If that request is ignored, I ask again and keep on asking until the request is responded to. If I get a response declining to furnish me with what I requested, I want to know why. And I keep asking why until a proper response has been obtained.

Seems to me if the original requests had been responded to and either information supplied or an adequate explaination given why the request couldn't be fulfilled, then repeated requests wouldn't have been made.

A self fulfilling situation surely? If you don't want folk to keep asking then deal with it, give em what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...