Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
IamsSon

Climate Gate "Scientists" Violated FOIA Law

21 posts in this topic

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 but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

The stolen e-mails , revealed on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, showed how the university’s Climatic Research Unit attempted to thwart requests for scientific data and other information, and suggest that senior figures at the university were involved in decisions to refuse the requests. It is not known who stole the e-mails.

Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.

Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the general faculty of EAU on this, the raw data is available from the MET office, if they wanted it they should have done what everyone else has to do and get from there. They didn't ask for raw data and hence this is imo a nonsense.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the general faculty of EAU on this, the raw data is available from the MET office, if they wanted it they should have done what everyone else has to do and get from there. They didn't ask for raw data and hence this is imo a nonsense.

How shocking that you would find this to be nonsense! tongue.gif

Whether the raw data is available or not somewhere else is irrelevant. There was a legal request made, and the only LEGAL and ETHICAL response would be to provide the data. Even scientists should know this.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How shocking that you would find this to be nonsense! tongue.gif

Whether the raw data is available or not somewhere else is irrelevant. There was a legal request made, and the only LEGAL and ETHICAL response would be to provide the data. Even scientists should know this.

Actually that is totally incorrect, it is availability of the raw data in question and as EAU have said that is available from the MET office and that is what this claim is over.

Ethics has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that is totally incorrect, it is availability of the raw data in question and as EAU have said that is available from the MET office and that is what this claim is over.

Ethics has nothing to do with it.

A legal request was made, and they actively and purposefully did not release the data.

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

You can keep making whatever excuses you want, but the responsible organization has made it's verdict. THEY KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THE LAW.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A legal request was made, and they actively and purposefully did not release the data.

[/color][/font][/color]

Yes I saw and I have told you why I think the judgement (meaningless as it is now anyway) is incorrect. The data is the property of the MET office not UEA and is available from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I saw and I have told you why I think the judgement (meaningless as it is now anyway) is incorrect. The data is the property of the MET office not UEA and is available from them.

Fortunately, in this case, it's your opinion which is meaningless and incorrect.

You are refusing to see that these men were not acting like proper scientists, which just makes you look as corrupt as them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately, in this case, it's your opinion which is meaningless and incorrect.

You are refusing to see that these men were not acting like proper scientists, which just makes you look as corrupt as them.

Don't be too hard on him, Iams...it's the world's newest religion and he's been brainwashed like the rest of you. :unsure2:

:lol:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be too hard on him, Iams...it's the world's newest religion and he's been brainwashed like the rest of you. :unsure2:

:lol:;)

Or it could be that I know a lot more about it than either you or Iams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it could be that I know a lot more about it than either you or Iams.

Did the ICO decide they failed to follow FOIA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the ICO decide they failed to follow FOIA?

Did I argue that? No. I said their conclusion was wrong. You question is meaningless and is not what I am discussing.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it could be that I know a lot more about it than either you or Iams.

Ohhh, listen to her.....gets an MSc in animalology and suddenly he is an expert to be listened to on both climate and law.

Edited by Moon Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I argue that? No. I said their conclusion was wrong. You question is meaningless and is not what I am discussing.

When did you acquire your law degree? Were you part of the investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did you acquire your law degree? Were you part of the investigation?

Irrelevant (although my best mate has one) and irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. The great and powerful white-coated Mattshark has spoken all others need listen and express their awe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. The great and powerful white-coated Mattshark has spoken all others need listen and express their awe.

He's almost like a Messiah type figure when theres a discussion on AGW. if theres research papers that are debunked, he has his own to make the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's almost like a Messiah type figure when theres a discussion on AGW. if theres research papers that are debunked, he has his own to make the case.

Nope I just said it is my opinion, and gave what I feel is valid reasoning, I am happy to listen to why you think my reasoning is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope I just said it is my opinion, and gave what I feel is valid reasoning, I am happy to listen to why you think my reasoning is wrong.

I'm just picking on you Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just picking on you Matt

*goes and cries in a corner

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again we are in the position of not trusting the investigator to interpret the dara correctly, but very much trusting him to have measured and recorded it correctly. Does anybody see a problem with this?

Nothing is stopping the plaintifs from going out and collecting their own datasets. Most are available from NOAA, including at least one of those involved in this lawsuit. The lawsuit is not only past the statute of limitations, it is frivolous. One gathers that its purpose is to harass investigators and obstruct free inquiry, to obscure rather than to enlighten.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.