In light of these recent ugly FOI revelations uncovered by the Associated Press, it makes the recent FOIA issues paper by our friend Dr. Jennifer Marohasy and the subsequent scathing Washington Times editorial about science and disclosure (see below the Continue reading line) even more relevant. Clearly governments and government sponsored institutions like CRU don’t give a care about complying with the FOIA laws. CRU skated on a statute of limitations technicality. This WUWT story from the British ICO:
…the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence…In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit.
And now we find not only did Homeland Security stonewall FOIA requests, they actively investigated the people making them:
===================================
Playing politics with public records requests
For at least a year, the Homeland Security Department detoured requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive, according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by The Associated Press.
The department abandoned the practice after AP investigated. Inspectors from the department’s Office of Inspector General quietly conducted interviews last week to determine whether political advisers acted improperly.
…
Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano’s political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38350993/ns/politics-more_politics/
========================================================
Excerpts from
EDITORIAL: Global warming’s unscientific attitude
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
7:17 p.m., Wednesday, July 21, 2010
What separates a scientific claim from mere opinion is its ability to be tested by experiment. No true scientist objects to having his theories verified; the charlatan is the one with something to hide. Not surprisingly, purveyors of global warming have proved anything but open.
In the current issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Law and Management, Australian researchers evaluated the community of so-called climate scientists and found them to be “antagonistic toward the disclosure of information.”
Professor John Abbot of Central Queensland University, a chemist and lawyer, and biologist Jennifer Marohasy studied the response of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) and the Met Office – Britain’s national weather service – to various information requests. The most noteworthy of these was United Kingdom resident David Holland’s demand for the raw data underlying the infamous “hockey stick” graph that was published in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports. This chart was the centerpiece of the claim that the 20th century was the hottest in a thousand years. The stir that Mr. Holland’s request triggered among the scientists who worked on the report was captured in the Climategate e-mails
…
Mr. Abbot and Ms. Marohasy wrote:
“Of concern is evidence of a predisposition towards uncooperativeness on the part of the Met Office, which also used spurious claims of deleted correspondence and personal information in attempts to block the release of information,”
…
None of these simple requests should have been denied or delayed. Many of those involved in purported climate science seem more preoccupied with advancing a leftist, anti-business legislative agenda than respecting the integrity of the scientific method. It’s obvious why. Their cataclysmic scare stories are unable to withstand scrutiny. By deleting e-mails and using tricks to hide the inconvenient decline in global temperatures, the climate alarmists prove to be not men of science, but ordinary frauds.
===============================================
Here is the full paper,
(Environmental Law and Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp. 3-12, 2010)
– John Abbot, Jennifer Marohasy
h/t to poptech
===============================================
My two cents? Exercise your freedom of vote: Throw the bums out in November.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is the full paper,
Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation (PDF)
(Environmental Law and Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp. 3-12, 2010)
– John Abbot, Jennifer Marohasy
REPLY: Thanks, updated in body of the post. – Anthony
“Many of those involved in purported climate science seem more preoccupied with advancing a leftist, anti-business legislative agenda than respecting the integrity of the scientific method.”
The Church of Scientolotics in action.
My two cents? Exercise your freedom of vote: Throw the bums out in November.
They will just be replaced by other bums,
REPLY: Saying then “don’t bother to vote”? – Anthony
Maybe more CO2 leads to more FOIA requests ? Another Global Warming problem?
The penalties, and the chance of facing them, clearly are not serving as a deterrant. They need to be higher and more likely to be used. I’m not blood-thirsty, I don’t want anyone going to jail, nor losing their house over this kind of thing, but they need to start impacting some careers and paying some meaningful fines of some nature.
I’ve long believed that the US government needs an independant ombudsman office at cabinet level to watch the rest of the government, and be the center of any “appeals” process and penalties to be imposed. It’s ridiculous when the responding agency gets to be the sole judge of whether they are doing it right or not when interacting with the public.
My two cents? Exercise your freedom of vote: throw the bums out in November.
Oh do you got that. As Evan Bayh said when he retired from the Senate, these people are going to require a disaster of biblical proportions before they get it. GIVE IT TO THEM!
The 6 month time limit that supposedly applied to the CRU and prevented them being prosecuted was bogus. The time limit applies to when the offense came to light, not when it was committed. It was only revealed when the emails where released and therefore the CRU could have been prosecuted at any time up to May 2010.
Anthony – Agreed . Unfortunately we will have to wait a couple of years to toss the current administration . While campaigning O railed against the last administration’s trampling of freedoms . Not only have they done nothing to rectify this , they have gone even further and , if unfettered , will not stop . What a bunch of hypocrites .
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm
They will just be replaced by other bums —
REPLY: Saying then “don’t bother to vote”? – Anthony
There are other reasons to throw them out. I’, afraid the new bums won’t be much better when it comes to open government…
Leif Svalgaard says on July 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I suspect Leif thinks the system is broken by design.
Personally, I don’t think there is any debating that the system is broken.
No need to throw anyone out in November. They are all equally beholden to corporate interests.
Note for instance how the Democrats just abandoned the carbon tax—a retreat from a position they knew was untenable, but necessary to mobilize part of the liberal grass roots in 2008.
Campaign finance reform is the name of the game. That and a thick layer of asphalt, replete with white stripes and parking meters, over K Street.
RE: Leif Svalgaard: (July 22, 2010 at 4:30 pm) “… the new bums won’t be much better when it comes to open government…”
We can only hope that they might be humbled by the fate of their predecessors. Of course, many first-time congressmen are probably greeted with the phrase: “The world is your oyster.” Let’s hope they do not try to make oyster soup.
Sorry Chuck. From the picture it looks as if FULCRUM is part of the solution, not part of the problem. 😉
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 22, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I’(m), afraid the new bums won’t be much better when it comes to open government…
Maybe, or maybe not. If we keep voting out the idiots, we might eventually end up with with ones that aren’t.
Not all of them are bad – just most.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm
My two cents? Exercise your freedom of vote: Throw the bums out in November.
They will just be replaced by other bums,
_________________________________________________________________________
While that may be true, I much prefer bums with whom I share political ideology.
Judd, Leif Svalgaard, Anthony, Richard Sharpe and mcates
I agree with all of you, we all need to vote and throw the bums out in November, but we also need to fix a broken system that encourages only bums to run for office. I think term limits might help, as it will eliminate some of the career politicians, but there are also the problems of earmarks, pay to play, the influence of lobbyists, the mainstream media becoming an advocacy apparatus, etc. The system needs a complete overhaul, possibly the establishment of a permanent competitive third party.
GW says:
July 22, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I much prefer bums with whom I share political ideology.
You mean the ones that are wrong for the right reasons…
Short term, voting the bums out can mitigate the process of reversing the CAGW fever temporarily only. The long term battle is philosophical and must be waged in university arts & humanity departments. Without waging that battle, then fresh crops of young people susceptible to manipulation will continue to be injected into society.
It is an epic battle that can be won . . . Hurrah!
John
The sort of openness and impartiality that opposition parties and FOI Acts promise just seems intolerable, almost impossible, for incumbant political powers. This can never be sustain and will always be abused. Politicised scientist have this mantra that today scientists have to be more than bent over their research, they need to be driven towards policy if not policy driven (and then there are the ‘knowledge transfer’ incentives etc). There are some benefits in this but then we get such science caught up in politics and the sort of openness and impartiality that it previously aspired too has become impossible. Just watch Trevor Davies at the Guardian debate. It is impossible for him to behave as we might hope a scientist would.
How nice that, in our political system, we can occasionally pull up the politicised scientist and embarriss the necessary pretences that they are still doing science. But better that we promote a movement towards old fashion scientific openness and impartiality, while avoiding the ivory tower syndrome. It’s a trick business, but we are not completly without guidance as there are some models in medical research (cf. dealing with its relationships with drug companies, with urban myths ; the evidence-based mov’t) that environmental science could certainly learn from.
Just a couple of points. The Times misrepresents what David Holland was asking for… not the raw data… but the deliberations behind the contentious Chapter 6 of the last IPCC report, AR4.
John Mitchell from the UK Met Office was a review editor for AR4, Chapter 6, and Mr Holland wanted to see the ‘written report’ he was required, by IPCC rules, to submit on his oversight.
Amazingly Mr Holland was first told he couldn’t have the report becuase John Mitchell had been acting in a personal capacity. But following is how the Met Office was forced to answer Mr Holland’s letter querying this:
(i) Did Dr Mitchell receive any salary from the Met Office
while performing his duties for the IPCe? (Met Office
response – Yes)
(ii) Was any of Dr Mitchell’s paid holiday entitlement used
during his attendance at IPCC meetings? (Met Office
response – No)
(iii) Were any of Dr Mitchell’s expenses for attending IPCC
meetings or workshops paid by the British
Government? (Met Office response – Yes)
(iv) Are there any documents evidencing agreement
between the Met Office and Dr Mitchell that his IPCC
participation was ‘personal’ rather than duties in the
normal course of his employment? (Met Office
respon se – No).
They really have no pride!
It is a shame that even after we throw them out we will have to pay them a pension for the rest of their lives. Must be nice. Getting elected to one term in the House or Senate is like winning the lottery. We need to get back to where it was a sacrifice to serve your country as an elected official.
For those whom might not be aware:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241 & § 241:
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000241—-000-.html
——
18 USC 242:
“WHOEVER, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects ANY person in ANY State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the CONSTITUTION or LAWS of the UNITED STATES, OR to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
BOTH of those statues apply FULLY to the shenanigans foisted upon those citizens whom were put upon by the Fatherland Security Department.
“Throw the bums out.” I agree; there are plenty of good, informed candidates ready and willing to take on the problems that make up the mess in Washington. If nothing else, voting out many of the incumbents will remove those dead-weights from positions of seniority. Just be selective and informed in your voting, and put in the people who are actually responsive to the needs of the United States! All of the Crap’n’Tax folks need to be gone, to say nothing of the bailout architects and the budget busters.
“Just The Facts says:
July 22, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Judd, Leif Svalgaard, Anthony, Richard Sharpe and mcates
The system needs a complete overhaul, possibly the establishment of a permanent competitive third party”
We may be beyond that.
It might be time for a benevolent dictator. I’m surrounded by people who believe these idiots mean no harm, and are basically innocent of any wrong doing. Some don’t even believe they’re all that dumb.
Of course the latest Gallup Poll puts approval of congress at %11, so that, at least, gives hope 🙂
JimB