"Climategate" Enquiry

[Devonian]

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.

But, for example, people made request of Dr Jones HE COULD NOT fulfily - namely to supply data not his. So, yes, you get a loop where he answers people's requests with the TRUTH (that the data wasn't his to give) people choose not to believe him (and it's pretty irritating to find it implied you're a LIAR is it not?) and it went round and round.

There is, is there not, a need for BOTH sides to provide a proper response? If someone tells you something isn't available why assume he is a lair? Why not take his word?

That's part of the reason for all this - the contempt and disrespect shown to decent honest people like the Dr Jones's of this world. Please, Jethro, put yourself in his/their shoes not the harassers.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Devonian

[Essan]

We understand (from those who claim to have made the FOI requests) that some if not most of what was requested was excluded under the FOIA ....... that in itself suuggests vexation does it not? Or at the least ignorance.

But as previously pointed out, we have virtually no other facts and yet are still rigorously debating who is right and who is wrong....

[Devonian]

We understand (from those who claim to have made the FOI requests) that some if not most of what was requested was excluded under the FOIA ....... that in itself suuggests vexation does it not? Or at the least ignorance.

Ahh, but that's all a conspiracy to hide a conspiracy of fraud and lies by evil scientists that will bring the house of climate science down to be replaced by the new truth of blog science isn't it

But as previously pointed out, we have virtually no other facts and yet are still rigorously debating who is right and who is wrong....

But, we do know Dr Jones was repeatedly asked for something not his to give?

[noggin]

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!

Well, I am thoroughly delighted that, at last, some common sense prevails. Lord Lawson has managed to hit every nail on the head in his letter and I think that if his requests/suggestions are taken up and the enquiry results in the truth of the matters coming out, then a lot of the arguments on here will be sorted out.

It really is a well worded and fair letter.

[noggin]

......and I am so glad that so many on here are equally as delighted at this sensible action.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I think the main problem the ICO had was the that there was actions to block the requests from certain elements. If they weren't so petty and just released the data as per the law, then they wouldn't of got into half the mess they are in now.

Ahh, but that's all a conspiracy to hide a conspiracy of fraud and lies by evil scientists that will bring the house of climate science down to be replaced by the new truth of blog science isn't it

But, we do know Dr Jones was repeatedly asked for something not his to give?

Did he steal the data then?

[Devonian]

I think the main problem the ICO had was the that there was actions to block the requests from certain elements. If they weren't so petty and just released the data as per the law, then they wouldn't of got into half the mess they are in now.

I don't see what is 'petty' about standing by a legal agreement?

Did he steal the data then?

No. He used data that was other meteorological agencies, that said agencies didn't want releasing. Again, it clearly wasn't his to give.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Devonian

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I don't see what is 'petty' about standing by a legal agreement?

No. He used data that was other meteorological agencies, that said agencies didn't want releasing. Again, it clearly wasn't his to give.

A statutory act in this country comes above so called binding agreements that form the basis of contracts.

The Freedom of Information is one such act. Therefore they were bound by the law to provide this information whenever it was requested under the act. That they didn't means they broke the law.

A HR department receives a P45 from a new employee, on this form is details of tax code, pay so far this year, name, address etc. This is NOT the companies information but the employees, however the company is bound to protect this information by law and release to HMRC as when fit. Not quite an exact fit, but the gist is the same.

If he held the data, people can request it under the FoI, no amount of 'it's not my fault, it wasn't mine' is going t get him out of that, its just a shame they can't be prosecuted because of a time constraint, which the ICO are looking to change for future cases.

[Devonian]

A statutory act in this country comes above so called binding agreements that form the basis of contracts.

The Freedom of Information is one such act. Therefore they were bound by the law to provide this information whenever it was requested under the act. That they didn't means they broke the law.

A HR department receives a P45 from a new employee, on this form is details of tax code, pay so far this year, name, address etc. This is NOT the companies information but the employees, however the company is bound to protect this information by law and release to HMRC as when fit. Not quite an exact fit, but the gist is the same.

If he held the data, people can request it under the FoI, no amount of 'it's not my fault, it wasn't mine' is going t get him out of that, its just a shame they can't be prosecuted because of a time constraint, which the ICO are looking to change for future cases.

Well, you've got them bang to right there Matt haven't you - what's the point of an inquiry, they're guilty :unsure:

Anyway, elsewhere people have argued that it's the responsibility of admin to sort out the FOI things and not the scientists concerned.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Well, you've got them bang to right there Matt haven't you - what's the point of an inquiry, they're guilty

Anyway, elsewhere people have argued that it's the responsibility of admin to sort out the FOI things and not the scientists concerned.

The ICO investigated a compaint by a scientist into the UEA and found them in breach of the act. I believe it seperate to the enquiry taking place into the actual data.

Oh, and in respect to this investigtion, yes they are.

[Devonian]

The ICO investigated a compaint by a scientist into the UEA and found them in breach of the act. I believe it seperate to the enquiry taking place into the actual data.

Oh, and in respect to this investigtion, yes they are.

Who needs the due process of law with you available eh Matt....

Edited January 29, 2010 by Devonian

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Who needs the due process of law with you available eh Matt....

I'm not sure I understand. The report is out into the FoI claim, its done, dusted.

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act...

[WindWatcher]

There is a bit more information confirming the statement from the ICO Here, the telegraph story is even on the ICO front page as news.

[Essan]

Now that is interesting! The UEA consulted with the ICO on all FOI requests .....

And it does seem to support my belief that the comments supposedly made by the ICO are based solely on an intepretation of personal email contents and an assumption that comments made were acted on - and not on any proper investigation of the facts. Hmmmm .....

Edited January 29, 2010 by Essan

[Devonian]

Yes, my bad, missed the BBC report yesterday and the various others in newspapers. So, it looks like the ICO think there was a breach. Of ocurse, what Dr Jones/the CRU have to say in their defence doesn't seem to matter...

I expect the internet clamour for some head(s) to roll will grow. But, until the dreadful day arrives and Dr Jones is sacked I refuse to believe the witch hunt has been a success but, I do have to admit some of the clamour in parts of the net is getting chillingly close to medieval...

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The Times (which had it on the front page yesterday) actually goes on to say it might be harder for Dr Jones to come back now.

Anyway, have a nice weekend all. I'm off for some fun and games.

[Devonian]

Now that is interesting! The UEA consulted with the ICO on all FOI requests .....

And it does seem to support my belief that the comments supposedly made by the ICO are based solely on an intepretation of personal email contents and an assumption that comments made were acted on - and not on any proper investigation of the facts. Hmmmm .....

Not sure I understand Andy - can you expand your comments a little? For example, what should I make of the BBC report?

[Essan]

As I understand it, certain emails indicated that persons at the CRU may have acted to prevent disclosing information requested by David Holland. He has then complained to the ICO - who have confirmed that - based on the content of the emails - an offence under the FOIA had been committed. But as it was so long ago, no action can be taken.

Meanwhile the UEA (of which CRU is a part) have stated that they have always consulted with the ICO on all FOI requests - and thus are gravely concerned by this new ICO statement.

None of which has anything at all to do with the various requests for raw climate data - except that we now know that the UEA would have checked with the ICO that such data was exempt from the FOIA. And we can be fairly sure now that there was perfectly good reasons why these numerous requests were rejected. Unless the ICO are in on the fraud too!

[Devonian]

As I understand it, certain emails indicated that persons at the CRU may have acted to prevent disclosing information requested by David Holland. He has then complained to the ICO - who have confirmed that - based on the content of the emails - an offence under the FOIA had been committed. But as it was so long ago, no action can be taken.

Meanwhile the UEA (of which CRU is a part) have stated that they have always consulted with the ICO on all FOI requests - and thus are gravely concerned by this new ICO statement.

None of which has anything at all to do with the various requests for raw climate data - except that we now know that the UEA would have checked with the ICO that such data was exempt from the FOIA. And we can be fairly sure now that there was perfectly good reasons why these numerous requests were rejected. Unless the ICO are in on the fraud too!

Ah, I see. So, as ever, not as guilty as we are led to believe.

[Essan]

Exactly! Indeed, maybe wholly innocent of all charges

[Devonian]

Exactly! Indeed, maybe wholly innocent of all charges

It's a pity Matt has gone...

[WindWatcher]

Exactly! Indeed, maybe wholly innocent of all charges

As I understand it, the offence doesn't come under the main FOI law, there is separate legislation relating to enviromental data held by public bodies that means ths data should have been released regardless of any any emails and they have therefore been in breach. However, they cannot be prosecuted due to the time elapsed. http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/environmental_information_regulation.aspx

Interestingly last night on some random website is the FOI request against Oxford University from mr Holland, this also covers the FOI request on UEA, makes interesting reading:

Oxford complaint Doc

[The PIT]

Oh because a University that was refusing to divulge data claims to always consult the appropriate authority mean they're innocent. Bit like believing a drunk who says he wasn't drinking that night he had a crash.

I can't see why the argument that it's too late to do anything means they're innocent.

Anyway I'm pretty sure the enquiry will find the truth some won't like it either way depending how the decision goes.

Edited January 29, 2010 by The PIT

[Solar Cycles]

Oh because a University that was refusing to divulge data claims to always consult the appropriate authority mean they're innocent. Bit like believing a drunk who says he wasn't drinking that night he had a crash.

I can't see why the argument that it's too late to do anything means they're innocent.

Anyway I'm pretty sure the enquiry will find the truth some won't like it either way depending how the decision goes.

I think it's best we all await the outcome now, hopefully it won't end up like the farcical Iraq war hearing, now taking place! Until then, I 'll reserve judgement!!

Edited January 29, 2010 by Solar Cycles

[Essan]

As I understand it, the offence doesn't come under the main FOI law

The issue of the raw data comes very much under FOI law and is very cleary exempt.

Interestingly last night on some random website is the FOI request against Oxford University from mr Holland, this also covers the FOI request on UEA, makes interesting reading:

Oxford complaint Doc

Interesting that person was making multiple FOI requests and is making multiple complaints.

As a Trustee of a charity I've encountered people like this many times before. Some people will attempt to have a charity closed because their accounts show 2567 nails were used whereas this person has determined only 2563 were used - thus proving fraud. You may wonder why I have little time for such persons ......