BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

UPDATE: (9:20 PST 10-17) the FOI request has been released, a copy of which is now linked below. This story will remain at the top of WUWT for a day or two. New stories will appear below this one.

CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official  correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

By Christopher Horner, CEI.org for WUWT

Although this is seedy and unlawful at any time, it also goes in the ‘bad timing’ file. Or it’s good timing, depending on one’s perspective.

Just as a brand new book further exposes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(which scam I dissected here, and in more disturbing detail here), and on the heels of the weekend surprise of a 2005 memo showing President Obama’s cooling/warming/population zealot of a ‘science czar’ John Holdren is the kind of guy Mitt Romney turns to to develop his ‘environmental’ policies, we’ve exposed the Obama administration and IPCC have cooperated to subvert U.S. transparency laws, run domestically out of Holdren’s White House office.

With this morning’s Freedom of Information Act request, the explaining they have to do must begin by providing the taxpayer certain records regarding — including but not limited to user name and password — for a backchannel ‘cloud’ established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

The IPCC, you will recall, is Al Gore’s co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. And the host over the years of numerous scandals involving fudged and twisted data, cut-and-pastes from student theses, popular magazine articles and green-group press releases and of course the infamous “hide the decline” in temperatures. This is not just one more scandal, however.

Until the FOI request is posted at CEI.org (later today), here is a snapshot:

CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official  correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

As our FOIA request details, the UN informed participants that it was motivated by embarrassing releases of earlier discussions (“ClimateGate” key among them), and to circumvent the problem that national government transparency laws were posing the group.

CEI reminds OSTP that this practice was described as “creat[ing] non-governmental accounts for official business”, “using the nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications”, in a recent analogous situation involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff. CEI expects similar congressional and media outrage at this similar practice to evade the applicable record-keeping laws.

This effort has apparently been conducted with participation — thereby direct assistance and enabling — by the Obama White House which, shortly after taking office, seized for Holdren’s office the lead role on IPCC work from the Department of Commerce. The plan to secretly create a FOIA-free zone was then implemented.

This represents politically assisting the IPCC to enable UN, EU and U.S. bureaucrats and political appointees avoid official email channels for specific official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers, away from the prying eyes of increasingly skeptical taxpayers.

CEI also reminds OSTP of a similar, ongoing effort by the administration to claim that records on U.S. government computers belong to the UN IPCC, refusing to produce them under FOIA. This practice was affirmed in a report by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General earlier this year.

As talks resume next month to forge a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, CEI looks forward to OSTP ceasing this unlawful activity, and providing prompt access to the requested records so the taxpayer can know what they, and the IPCC, are up to.

So this morning we requested all relevant records under FOIA, including all records sitting on that server, as they all were provided to U.S. government employees for official purposes. This was filed with OSTP run by controversial ‘science czar” and, we now know, former Mitt Romney ‘climate’ advisor John Holdren. The taxpayer deserves to know about this coordinated effort between OSTP and the IPCC to subvert U.S. law.

Possibly one Republican candidate will call in the next debate for ending US funding of the IPCC, now shown to be actively working (with the Obama White House) to subvert US law. Enough is enough is enough. Possibly Gov. Romney could defend Holdren and the IPCC.

In the meantime, we look for Rep. Henry Waxman’s outrage over Abramoff to prove it was also not political, and come down hard on the practice he so aggressively condemned and pursued, demanding preservation of records, threatening subpoenas, the whole works. With our request, that’s essentially what we’ve done, and we’d appreciate the company. You too, NPR.

Of course, it may not be of interest to the media because it only uncovers unlawful dealings to hide an effort impacting our entire economy, the premise for that “fundamental transformation” of America, with the sleazy lobbying operation being the UN. We’ll wait on OSTP’s response and hope for the best from the Hill and Republican candidates.

===============================================================

UPDATE: The FOI request document:  OSTP_IPCC_Elec_Comm_FOIA1 (PDF 112k)

About these ads

185 thoughts on “BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

  1. Chris,

    If you look in the climategate mails you will find that Jones planned a meeting with patchy and Tom Stocker to discuss strategies for “handling” FOIA and the IPCC.

    like I said back on nov 19, 2009. Follow the FOIA.

    Nice work.

  2. I get the gist but you need to seriously substantively edit this post. “Get me Rewrite”. Here’s your lede.

    “CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.”

    Start there.

    Slagging assorted Administration figures can wait for several grafs. Your real story is the idea that the IPCC is encouraging the creation of a backchannel in the Cloud. Hit it and hit it again.

    REPLY: I’ll add that as a short intro read, thanks, Chris is offline for a few hours – Anthony

  3. Ever since reading Red Hot Lies, I’ve been an avid followed of Chris Horner and in turn Watts and others. If only other people would actually educate themselves and listen to all this. How can they call skeptics “deniers” when the IPCC hides everything possible and lies at every turn (yet sill never fails to screw up)?

  4. The longer we leave this IPCC thing lying around, the worse it stinks – even worse than its unelected, unrepresentative parent the UN. For decency’s sake, it’s way past time that we bury the body and disinfect public life.

    Excellent work, Chris, and thanks.

  5. This is absurd…CEI and its cohorts are invading the privacy of the IPCC knights, inhibiting the salvation of our world. We need to get those IPCC boys and girls some encrypted satellite telephones and fax machines, fast. Better yet, anybody involved in the IPCC should start using little slips of paper delivered by children for all future communications. The mafia uses this last method since it has the distinct advantage of working even while the participants are in prison (hint, hint).

  6. Chris,

    Are you trying to get yourself shot? Your run the risk of seriously exposing yourself to a pretty unsavory leftist mob with all this fact finding. If I were you I’d hire a food taster and stop appearing in public. Maybe buy some Kevlar long-johns, but by all means do not stop tearing into the IPCC and their nine circles of fraud.

    Fabulous work!

  7. Two questions….
    Do Nobel Laurette gongs come with an embossed return address?
    Will the largest toll ring out from ObamaGate or ClimateGate?

  8. Actually the latest list is 129 scandals long, last updated about 10 months ago. That was my last list.
    The scandals are so numerous that I have given up trying to keep track of them all.

  9. This breathless screaming tabloid approach is not my cup of tea.

    I’m with Jay Currie – this just clouds the message.

    Nevertheless, the deliberate subversion of national laws by or on behalf of a body which is under the auspices of the UN is just insupportable.

    There is no way that the UN can support such a actions, and there is no way that the dollars of taxpayers should go to pay the UN for such actions.

    I would also be surprised if such actions were not formally in breach of the UN Charter.

  10. OSTP = White House Office of Science and Technology Policy – John Holdren is director (science czar).

  11. UK Sceptic says: October 17, 2011 at 1:06 am
    “The kind of nefarious, White House dirty deeds that impeachment was designed for…”

    Well, in fact the Bush Admin did exactly that – used RNC accounts for Government business on a massive scale. I don’t recall any talk of impeachment over that. And it didn’t seem to violate FOIA,

    REPLY: Ah geez Nick, pull your head out of your ass for once. – Anthony

  12. memoryvault says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:31 am

    On behalf of all us anagram-challenged foreigners outside of the alphabet soup addicted U.S., may I ask please who or what is/are the OSTP?

    Office of Science and Technology Policy is part of the White House staff

  13. UK Sceptic said –
    “The kind of nefarious, White House dirty deeds that impeachment was designed for…”

    to which Nick Stokes replied –
    “Well, in fact the Bush Admin did exactly that – used RNC accounts for Government business on a massive scale. I don’t recall any talk of impeachment over that. And it didn’t seem to violate FOIA”,

    Whatever the merits of this debate, it is really entirely peripheral to the central central message.

    I take it that the central message concerns the deliberate subversion of the national law of a constituent state by a UN body. I imagine, perhaps somewhat naively, that this would be of great concern to every citizen of the planet.

    Officials working for the UN do not hold office by way of any election; they are not in any sense representative of the interests of a constituency; they subsist on tax dollars provided by citizens of the member nations.

    Then they had better abide by the Charter to which they owe their position and power! To repeat, the subversion of the laws of a member state by UN officials is insupportable.

  14. You can always rely on Nick Stokes to defend the indefensible. Has he not heard that two wrongs don’t make a right?

  15. I sense that there is a real story here, but it is a pity that it is written in a way that is largely unintelligible to me, and, I suspect, most of my age group. .

  16. <bMemorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
    SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

    My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

    BARACK OBAMA

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

  17. Steeptown says: October 17, 2011 at 3:53 am
    “You can always rely on Nick Stokes to defend the indefensible. Has he not heard that two wrongs don’t make a right?”

    I don’t think they were equivalent. One was the WH using external accounts for WH business. The other is the IPCC using IPCC accounts for IPCC business.

  18. The real problem in the US is that we have many millions of stupid , greedy people sucking a living off of the rest of the people. By that statement I am not referring to welfare as much as I am to the corporate thieves that infest the body politic. They have sucked fortunes from the tortured taxpayers and are never satisfied. There is only one canidate for election to the office of president of the US that has a record of taking them on and that is Texas representative to congress Ron Paul.

  19. p gosselin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 2:31 am
    Actually the latest list is 129 scandals long, last updated about 10 months ago. That was my last list.
    The scandals are so numerous that I have given up trying to keep track of them all””

    Please keep adding to the list as it is very good to have. With Thanks.

  20. And yet we are constantly being told by the leaders of AGW movement that the “deniers” are the ones who are well-funded are well-organized whereas they are poor and have to fight. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. How can they get away with such hypocrisy? In part because most of the media is in bed with them.

  21. Steeptown says:
    “You can always rely on Nick Stokes to defend the indefensible. Has he not heard that two wrongs don’t make a right?”

    For the same reasons I gave above, this is not to the point – is it not incomparably more important to know what officials of the UN are doing to subvert the national law of a member state? It is an integral part of the concept and purpose of the UN that it promotes trust and the rule of law in international affairs.

    But here, an official organ of the UN can be seen to be engaged in activities which are the very antithesis of that.

    I put it to all reading this blog: this is not a minor incident, it is something that goes to the raison d’etre of the UN and it is about as serious as it can get in the ordinary conduct of public international affairs. This MUST be dealt with in the most uncompromising way.

  22. Obama promised “an unprecedented level of openness.” What we are getting are unprecedented levels of phoniness, not to mention unprecedented levels of abuse of the word unprecedented by both government and climate scientists, who overuse the word unprecedented in the same way that the shyster Vizzini overused the word inconceivable in Princess Bride.

    Transparency and Open Government
    Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

    SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

    My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

    Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

    Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government’s effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

    Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

    I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

    This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

    BARACK OBAMA

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

  23. Nick, you must have brothers and sisters that whenever you did something wrong, you pointed your crawly finger and insisted that they did the same thing–or worse!!!
    The scorge of your family and a clueless wit here.

  24. Sounds like Chris Horner is trying to channel Glen Beck.

    Please bring back the other America Tradition Institute guy. I may not agree with him but at least he sounds sane. Chris is spinning so fast you could use him to power an ultracentrifuge to separate uranium isotopes.

    REPLY: Ditto what I said to Nick Stokes – Anthony

  25. No point in impeachment, no point in “voting”. Impeachment just puts the VP in power. “Voting” just puts the precisely identical “Republican” in power. There are candidates who solidly disagree with the current state of affairs, but you can be 100.0000000% certain they will not be the “nominee”. Romney is the “Republican” “nominee”, and has been from the start. He will “lose” to the current president, because the current president has already shown perfect loyalty to Wall Street and Romney is a somewhat less certain hedge.

    Won’t matter anyway. National suicide continues without pause.

  26. Greg Holmes says:
    October 17, 2011 at 1:27 am
    ‘“Mafia” by another name, but the rewards are bigger.’

    Actually, it’s worse than that (and than we thought). At least the mafia sells protection from the mafia. These guides don’t even do that. They use taxpayer money to concoct schemes that would open a permanent flood gate of taxpayer money into their bank accounts.

  27. Lots and lots of unsubstantiated stuff in here, and anyone can say anything in an FOIA request. Looking forward to you finding these accounts and showing them being used in the way you purport occurred – you know, real journalism with actual facts and not just innuendo and belief.

  28. Subverting government transparency legislation to go along with subverting the scientific peer review process. What won’t these manics manipulate to take control of the machine?

  29. Kohl says:
    October 17, 2011 at 3:39 am
    UK Sceptic said –
    “The kind of nefarious, White House dirty deeds that impeachment was designed for…”

    to which Nick Stokes replied –
    “Well, in fact the Bush Admin did exactly that – used RNC accounts for Government business on a massive scale. I don’t recall any talk of impeachment over that. And it didn’t seem to violate FOIA”,

    Whatever the merits of this debate, it is really entirely peripheral to the central central message.

    I take it that the central message concerns the deliberate subversion of the national law of a constituent state by a UN body. I imagine, perhaps somewhat naively, that this would be of great concern to every citizen of the planet.

    Officials working for the UN do not hold office by way of any election; they are not in any sense representative of the interests of a constituency; they subsist on tax dollars provided by citizens of the member nations.

    Then they had better abide by the Charter to which they owe their position and power! To repeat, the subversion of the laws of a member state by UN officials is insupportable.

    We have a trans-national president now. He was appointed President of the World at some rock concert in Berlin, I think.

    Anyhoo, this is a president who ordered US military forces into action in Libya without Congressional approval, which should be a much greater offense.

  30. Nick Stokes says:
    October 17, 2011 at 4:28 am

    Actually, its about employees of The Untied States government working for the IPCC and being paid by the U.S. tax payers, while at the same time hiding information from those same tax payers. Discussions of former administrations are irrelevant.

  31. “The other is the IPCC using IPCC accounts for IPCC business.”

    It is a shame to hear someone so intelligent and creative make such a lame argument, and it’s so disappointing.

    The IPCC is the public’s business.

    It belongs to us. It is accountable to us. It lives to serve us. It has no other purpose.

    Everything about the IPCC, including its own internal processes, must be made public and subject to intense and severe scrutiny and bona fide audits. The messages and communications made by all IPCC servants must be made public for review using a current technology platform. This is so easy and simple using current technology. Google would host this project in a heartbeat if given the chance.

    Anything else is just cover for what has become arguably the greatest scam in human history.

  32. Seems to me taxpayers tolerate way too much, but, fortunately, they usually draw the line at blatent trickery. As will many, I eagerly await the contents of this correspondence.

  33. polistra says:
    October 17, 2011 at 5:25 am

    No point in impeachment, no point in “voting”. Impeachment just puts the VP in power. “Voting” just puts the precisely identical “Republican” in power. There are candidates who solidly disagree with the current state of affairs, but you can be 100.0000000% certain they will not be the “nominee”. Romney is the “Republican” “nominee”, and has been from the start…….
    ==============================================================
    I don’t think he’s going to make it. The conservatives of the Repub party, both fiscal and moral, dislike Romney. He’s viewed as a RINO. Currently, the field is flooded that divides the votes of the base. Cain and Perry and to a lesser extent, Paul and Bachmann. I’ve no idea why the others are still running. But, once the field begins to thin, you’ll see Cain’s and/or Perry’s numbers increase to beyond Romney’s. The exception being the 2% that supports Huntsman, those will go to Romney.

    While I understand how it is easy to become cynical, I’m optimistic. Just remember to consider congressional candidates, also. Move them out.

  34. Just wanted to thank the author for uncovering the 2005 memo. While I am still a “anyone but Obama” guy as far as the general elections goes, I am just praying Romney is not the alternative.

  35. Chris Hanson says:
    October 17, 2011 at 6:48 am

    It seems criminal in intent.
    ==================================
    It certainly does, and fortunately we have an attorney general whose integrity is beyond…… oh wait, nvm…..

  36. Nick Stokes admits the IPCC secrecy practice is culpable because it allegedly matches actions by the (always presumptively evil) Bush administration. So I would not describe Stokes’ comment as a ‘defense’ as another commenter did.

    Some points to keep in mind are (a) the RNC is not a taxpayer supported entity;(b) it would be entirely lawful for WH personnel to communicate via RNC channels regarding any matter not covered by the records act; (c) such lawful communications are presumptively private and not subject to FOI, unlike matters involving government-funded activities.

    The notion that the IPCC, which is almost entirely funded by governments can selectively exempt itself from transparency requirements is not only unlawful but utterly stupid as a matter of policy. To attempt to build a private channel encourages partisanship, petty scheming and ideological corruption–which, come to think of it, is the way the IPCC appears to operate now. Those who want the IPCC project to succeed should be at the forefront demanding unconditional transparency.

  37. Given the incompetence and corruption of the UN, and the shoot the message approach is has to those inside that point these out , this is hardly a surprise. It just a shame as much effort does not go into making the IPCC work in the way it should , they people may not need to question it so much and it would be a lot less likely to get caught-out in the first place .

  38. The only reason a person does not let their spouse read their e-mail and blames them for “digging too much” is because they are actually cheating on them. The obvious alternative is to have a secondary, secret e-mail account to cheat with. It is pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that the IPCC and “the team” are cheating on all of us.

  39. This is basically the same thing as classifying FOIA material. If you remove the existence of correspondence on official channels and move it to areas unknown by outsiders, it becomes un-acknowledged and hence effectively need-to-know. This is effectively the same thing as making it classified, and highly illegal for activities that are designated as subject to FOIA.

    If true, we are no longer in a “danger zone” with regards to government officials removing visibility of government activities from the voting public, this would unquestionably be a war on fundamental rights granted to the people of the U.S.

  40. And here’s some more grist for the phony carbon mill — Solyndra Redux?

    Extract from National Review Online

    It’s remarkable to see how similar the arguments being put forward by wind-energy proponents are to those that the Obama administration is using to justify its support of Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar company that got a $529 million loan guarantee from the federal government. But in some ways, the government support for the Shepherds Flat deal is worse than what happened with Solyndra.

    The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon is coming courtesy of federal taxpayers. And that largesse will provide a windfall for General Electric and its partners on the deal who include Google, Sumitomo, and Caithness Energy. Not only is the Energy Department giving GE and its partners a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, but as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million.

    The deal was so lucrative for the project developers that last October, some of Obama’s top advisers, including energy-policy czar Carol Browner and economic adviser Larry Summers, wrote a memo saying that the project’s backers had “little skin in the game” while the government would be providing “a significant subsidy (65+ percent).” The memo goes on to say that, while the project backers would only provide equity equal to about 11 percent of the total cost of the wind project, they would receive an “estimated return on equity of 30 percent.”

    The memo continues, explaining that the carbon dioxide reductions associated with the project “would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton for CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies.” The memo continues, saying that that per-ton cost is “more than 6 times the primary estimate used by the government in evaluating rules.”

  41. Old Hoya says:
    October 17, 2011 at 7:09 am
    Nick Stokes admits the IPCC secrecy practice is culpable because it allegedly matches actions by the (always presumptively evil) Bush administration. So I would not describe Stokes’ comment as a ‘defense’ as another commenter did.

    Some points to keep in mind are (a) the RNC is not a taxpayer supported entity;(b) it would be entirely lawful for WH personnel to communicate via RNC channels regarding any matter not covered by the records act; (c) such lawful communications are presumptively private and not subject to FOI, unlike matters involving government-funded activities.

    The notion that the IPCC, which is almost entirely funded by governments can selectively exempt itself from transparency requirements is not only unlawful but utterly stupid as a matter of policy. To attempt to build a private channel encourages partisanship, petty scheming and ideological corruption–which, come to think of it, is the way the IPCC appears to operate now. Those who want the IPCC project to succeed should be at the forefront demanding unconditional transparency.

    In fact, it is illegal to conduct strictly political business (RNC, DNC, re-election activities) using the WH mail system.

  42. Contrary to Nick Stokes, the IPCC’s business is inherently governmental and inter-governmental in nature. US Federal government employees who work on inputs to the IPCC using government time are subject to disclosure of their activities. The OSTP is inherently a governmental agency, and it is functioning as a means of consolidating information from Commerce (NIST), EPA, NASA and other government agencies to support an international effort. It appears that the segregated servers and back-channel communications lines are deliberately created to subvert FOIA and other disclosure requirements. This is clearly illegal and could legally be construed as a conspiracy and be subject to both civil and criminal prosecution (as noted, see J. Abramoff). If personal cell phones or electronics are used for business purposes they become subject to disclosure.

  43. xiver1972 says:
    October 17, 2011 at 7:05 am
    Why can’t the U.S. government prosecute any U.S. citizens participating in this scheme?

    Because the US government is a willing and active participant and facilitator.

  44. Subversion is obvious, always has been. No conspiracy here. It is just an agreement between persons to accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. Just another innocent “boys will be boys” caper. You people just don’t realize how grave a threat climate is! These people are trying to save your grandchildren, for pity’s sake. Don’t you care about the planet?

    Where are the tough MSM investigative reporters, like yesteryears’s Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein? Shouldn’t they be all over this, like stink on a pig? Shouldn’t the president be answering some tough questions, this morning, regarding policy?

    Is it OK, to attempt a government within a government?? GK

  45. So 6 years ago Romney (or was it just someone on Romney’s staff?) talked with Holdren and others about CO2 regulations in Massachusetts. The memo doesn’t seem to support the idea that Holdren was Romney’s “science advisor” in any kind of ongoing capacity. Rather, Holdren was then the professor of environmental policy at Harvard, in Massachusetts. Seems Romney could have gotten severly criticized had he not at least reached out to the most prestigious institution in the State for input on the State’s environmental policies. Holdren is of course not playing with a full deck, but I’m not sure comparing Romney’s inclusion of Holdren in the process of looking at a specific environmental policy at that time in Massachusetts can compare with Obama’s appointment of Holdren as the chief science official in the country.

    Do we know how much Holdren had to do with the ultimate position taken by Massachusetts in the memo (or was he one of many who weighed in during the process)? Do we know if Mitt Romey has continued to work with Holdren over the years or plans to keep him on if Romney is successfully elected?

  46. “Why can’t the U.S. government prosecute any U.S. citizens participating in this scheme?”

    The people in charge of any such prosecution would be the US Justice Dept. Who’s head Eric Holder is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of Barack Obama.

  47. steven mosher says:
    October 17, 2011 at 12:12 am said “If you look in the climategate mails you will find that Jones planned a meeting with patchy and Tom Stocker to discuss strategies for “handling” FOIA and the IPCC.”

    Conspiracy to engage in unlawful acts?

    It used to be that TALKING ABOUT killing a bald eagle was enough to get you a jail term, as killing one is a federal crime. I guess if the warmists had a hate-on for bald eagles that wouldn’t have happened, either.

  48. The “Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Chicanery.” Mitt for brains Romney needs to be questioned about his RINO tendencies. OMG! (Obama Must Go!) Can’t this be the nail in the coffin for AGW? Why doesn’t Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh use their bully pulpit to bury this nonsense? I’ll keep the USA. Ya’ll can keep the change. Also, the article WAS poorly written. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed.

  49. And we never found out was in the precious e-mails deleted at the request of Phil Jones and his co-conspirators.
    Where were the forensic investigation to recover the deleted emails from back-up tapes?
    This makes complete mockery of Obama’s call for open and transparent administration.

  50. I read a fair bit of the new book on the IPCC this weekend, and totally agree with the criticism of the “tabloid approach” The very title (Delinquent Teenager) is not needed. The facts speak for themselves and are better reported without the sense of editorial outrage.

  51. I think there was a hint ~12 days ago about what the ATI revealed today concerning alleged IPCC plans to hide official correspondence on non-governmental email accounts.

    As you may recall, on Wednesday, October 5 @ 2:15 PM at the David Skaggs Research Center in Boulder, Colorado there was a seminar given by Dr. William Burne (“consultant” to the Penn State Inquiry Committee on M. Mann) on the Penn State Inquiry into M. Mann.

    A commenter at CA, who was at the seminar given by Brune, provided some of his personal notes from the seminar. The following comment was posted on CA’s thread “Seminar on Penn State Inquiry” at Oct 5, 2011 at 9:49 PM.

    Bruen [Brune] stated that the IPCC has directed all of its principal authors and reviewers to NOT use email in communicating among themselves.

    Although I do not know the full context in which Brune was reported to make that statement . . . think about this.

    If this comment by Brune is confirmed it implies that the IPCC had an intention to avoid info exposure by FOIA. The intent to avoid, if confirmed, is another very damning piece against the IPCC’s integrity and trustworthiness.

    John

  52. Re Nick Stokes says:
    October 17, 2011 at 3:00 am

    UK Sceptic says: October 17, 2011 at 1:06 am
    “The kind of nefarious, White House dirty deeds that impeachment was designed for…”

    Nick, Source your data.

  53. Did my good deed for the day and left a tip at Drudge … but I guess a breaking story about attempts to avoid FOIA laws doesn’t interest him … yet.

  54. Doug says:
    October 17, 2011 at 8:59 am

    I read a fair bit of the new book on the IPCC this weekend, and totally agree with the criticism of the “tabloid approach” The very title (Delinquent Teenager) is not needed. The facts speak for themselves and are better reported without the sense of editorial outrage.

    Doug,

    Au contraire, mon ami. I think the setting of the IPCC discussion within the context of the behavior and credibility of an un-enlightened and disturbed pre-adult is very clever of Donna L.

    It is fruitful on many levels, not the least of which it sets the tone of the dialog about the IPCC appropriately in a way that shows the IPCC is not to be respected prima fascia . . . . it has yet to earn respect in any objective and open way.

    John

  55. There were two possible IPCC responses to Climategate –

    1. Reform practices to eliminate unprofessional, unscientific, and/or illegal behavior, or

    2. Do a better job of hiding the chicanery.

    Legitimate scientific organizations choose (1). Political mobsters go the other way.

    “CEI expects similar congressional and media outrage at this similar practice to evade the applicable record-keeping laws.”

    LOL.

  56. Correction to my comment @ October 17, 2011 at 9:14 am

    I meant CEI, not ATI.

    So my lead off paragraph should have been:

    I think there was a hint ~12 days ago about what the ATI CEI revealed today concerning alleged IPCC plans to hide official correspondence on non-governmental email accounts.

    John

  57. I thought big socialist governments had the right to pull this kind hide anything they want?
    After all we the people are nothing but an inconvenience to their goals and aspirations.

  58. I’m glad that the U.S. House voted to defund the IPCC last February

    Of course, for this budget year…

    The U.S. Global Change Research Program for Fiscal Year 2011

    Through Department of State (DOS) annual funding,
    the United States is the world’s leading financial
    contributor to the United Nations Framework
    Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (IPCC)
    —the principal international organization for
    the assessment of scientific, technical, and socioeconomic
    information relevant to the understanding of
    climate change, its potential impacts, and options for
    adaptation and mitigation. Recent DOS contributions
    to these organizations provide substantial support for
    global climate observation and assessment activities
    in developing countries. DOS also works with other
    agencies in promoting international cooperation in
    a range of bilateral and multilateral climate change
    initiatives and partnerships.44
    Program Highlights for FY 2011
    During FY 2011, DOS will continue to support the
    activities of the UNFCCC and the IPCC, and will advance
    and develop international climate and related
    energy partnerships.

    The FY 2011 budget requests $2.7 billion for USGCRP
    programs—an increase of about 24% over the FY
    2010 level.4
    This increase reflects the expanded needs
    discussed above and represents a commitment by
    the Obama Administration to the USGCRP

  59. This is what happens when the Democrats allowed Obama to institute a number of czars without question. They have no accountability to the American public and subvert the Cabinet positions. Nothing will happen to Holdren, except he will be free to leave and congratulated by Obama for his “selfless commitment”.

  60. John Whitman says:
    October 17, 2011 at 9:35 am

    “Au contraire, mon ami. I think the setting of the IPCC discussion within the context of the behavior and credibility of an un-enlightened and disturbed pre-adult is very clever of Donna L.”

    Yes, and one must also consider that among academics the last year of adolescence is 39. Apparently for railroad engineers, the last year is 69.

  61. Demonstration that the UN considers itself to national governments and the ruled peoples. EUSSR on a global scale, anyone?

  62. Sorry,

    The actions are not “circumventing” anything, nor are they illegal. The FOIA is perfectly suited for disclosure of communications over official govt channels, and also by extension, channels that “have a hint of official funding.”

    Stop and think of what you all are essentially asking for:

    If Joe Blow is a weather researcher, then *anything* he ever communicates in *any* capacity over *any* channel is subject to disclosure. Accordingly, why not simply strip any govt employee, or any employee of any institution that has any hint of govt funding of any and all privacy in anything that they say…… *That* is essentially what you all are calling for.

    I have no problem with communications that are done over a govt network, or a govt computer being subject to FOIA.

    But, dear lord, do you think that the real intent was to strip any and all privacy from any and all communciations (as this post seems to want to do and a number of people seem to apparently wish….)

    Talk about a witch hunt….

  63. marfalights says:
    October 17, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    Sorry,

    The actions are not “circumventing” anything, nor are they illegal. The FOIA is perfectly suited for disclosure of communications over official govt channels, and also by extension, channels that “have a hint of official funding.”

    It is against federal law to deliberately hide information that is subject to FOIA. A need-to-know communications network for IPCC authors is unjustifiable on its face. Stop and think for a moment what you are talking about. The IPCC seeks to use the power of open investigation from the brightest minds in the world to discover an answer on one of the more complex questions facing humanity today. You are now saying that it is perfectly acceptable for taxpayer-funded open climate research and their associated political conclusions to be locked onto an unknown and untouchable communications cloud. This is the very antithesis of science, and you are trying to say “oh well it’s not illegal.”

    Not only is it illegal to establish a secret channel of communications to avoid FOIA, it is an unpardonable sin when it comes to publicly funded scientific work.

    Stop and think of what you all are essentially asking for:

    If Joe Blow is a weather researcher, then *anything* he ever communicates in *any* capacity over *any* channel is subject to disclosure. Accordingly, why not simply strip any govt employee, or any employee of any institution that has any hint of govt funding of any and all privacy in anything that they say…… *That* is essentially what you all are calling for.

    No, you are confused. That is what already exists now. If you are a public employee, your work e-mails and official correspondence are a matter of public record, period. Don’t like it? Dont accept money from the citizens of the U.S. to do your job. While you work for me, on my tax dollars, you answer to me (ultimately). That is the very spirit of the freedom of information act, to say nothing about how badly the letter of it is currently being violated.

    I have no problem with communications that are done over a govt network, or a govt computer being subject to FOIA.

    Then how can you possibly argue for the exclusion of scientific research paid for by citizens to be exempt from it? That is what you are doing above.

    But, dear lord, do you think that the real intent was to strip any and all privacy from any and all communciations (as this post seems to want to do and a number of people seem to apparently wish….)

    Talk about a witch hunt….

    If Michael Mann wishes private conversation with Phil Jones, I’m sure he can find the time for some private time on one of their many climate-conference-jetset trips. If, however, he sends messages pertaining to research that impacts conclusions that affect the who world, and which citizens of the world helped pay for, then yes, his privacy concerns don’t apply.

  64. marfalights says @ 12:08 pm:

    Stop and think of what you all are essentially asking for:

    If Joe Blow is a weather researcher, then *anything* he ever communicates in *any* capacity over *any* channel is subject to disclosure. Accordingly, why not simply strip any govt employee, or any employee of any institution that has any hint of govt funding of any and all privacy in anything that they say…… *That* is essentially what you all are calling for.

    I have no problem with communications that are done over a govt network, or a govt computer being subject to FOIA.

    I was, for a time, a Federal employee. Communications between Federal employees and those doing business with the government ARE subject to the FOI Act, whether backchannel, on the clock, or not. My agency required me to report ALL such contacts. Don’t know about others.

    Private communications with dis-interested individuals, businesses, etc., while not on government time or not over government owned communications systems are not subject to FOI. As best as I recall what I signed.

  65. marfalights – this was government work, and according to the CEI’s FOIA request it was done through government computers and networks.

  66. The czars had better clean up after themselves. There is no rationale for their existence other than as an end run around the cabinet departments — thus avoiding oversight. That is the same reason Obama has never passed a budget. It would have to be scored etc… I suspect this latest scandal just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way a guy like Holdren isn’t engaging in some illegal scheme 24 hours a day.

    Obama has always depended on no one wanting to hold the black guy accountable. He has been held to either a lower standard or no standard his entire life. The next administration will probably want to move on so we will never know the extent of the graft and scheming that went on in his administration.

  67. Excellent work as usual Mr. Horner. The absolute willingness to run rough-shod over the scientific method, democratic processes, and people is so breath-taking in it’s audacity that the only way they can get away with it is a compliant, complicit media.

  68. RayG says: October 17, 2011 at 9:19 am
    “Nick, Source your data”

    Not sure exactly what you mean, but I’m guessing it’s WH use of the RNC accounts. OK, from the Congressional Oversight Committee:
    “White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts. The RNC has preserved 140,216 e-mails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these e-mails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official “.gov” e-mail accounts. Other heavy users of RNC e-mail accounts include former White House Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 e-mails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 e-mails). These e-mail accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.”

  69. I don’t get it, if I were a yank, I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one being remembered as the communist hippie who painted the white house red, I mean OMG it just perverts the whole idea that is the USA.

  70. Assuming that the damning documents are not shredded and FOIA requests are not stoenwalled, start thinking RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

  71. Somebody better send off a note to all of those southern species that keep migrating north and tell them this climate change thing is a sham. Send one to the melting permafrost and retreating sea ice while you’re at it.

  72. stephan says:
    October 17, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Is real climate finished can’t access any more

    ————–

    stephan,

    I just tried to access RC through WUWT’s link and also through a Google Search link. I could not connect.

    Oops . . . . they aren’t one of the internet fora that had a ‘backchannel’ hidden login service for the IPCC, are they? So the RC site that us normal internet users would see is just the public face, but maybe there was a hidden portal that only registered users could see?

    Naaaaaaaaaaaaaa . . . but mischievous and curious minds do wonder. : )

    John

  73. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

    “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

    SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

    My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

    Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public…”

  74. OK S. says:
    October 17, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    “Private communications with dis-interested individuals, businesses, etc., while not on government time or not over government owned communications systems are not subject to FOI. As best as I recall what I signed.”

    Additionally, being on/in the property of your (specific) government employer counts for FOI.

  75. Nick Stokes says:

    “I don’t think they were equivalent.”

    Oookay, why did you bring the RNC one up then? Try to stay on topic, dude. When you introduce irrelevencies, it makes you look like you’re afraid to discuss the actual topic.

    “The other is the IPCC using IPCC accounts for IPCC business.”

    Whoops, you left out “secretly”.

    Here’s the deal: it has already been ruled that IPCC correspondence is subject to FOI. Even if you don’t believe it, the IPCC does, because that is the REASON for their actions, if what is being reported above turns out to be correct. There is no point in pretending that IPCC correspondence is not also gov’t correspondence subject to FOI; that ship has sailed.

    Additionally, the IPCC has stated that one of their goals is to be transparent, but what this shows is that they really intend to be opaque. Is that not worth observing?

    If the IPCC is saying one thing publicly, and doing something else in secrecy, are they a trustworthy organization?

    Furthermore, for some reason the IPCC has apparently identified a NEED to be opaque, since it took this action. Apparently, science done in the public’s eye rots, or something. Is that not worth observing?

  76. RDCII says:
    October 17, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Very well said. Nothing satisfies like a well explicated argument.

  77. John Whitman says:
    October 17, 2011 at 9:14 am

    “If this comment by Brune is confirmed it implies that the IPCC had an intention to avoid info exposure by FOIA. The intent to avoid, if confirmed, is another very damning piece against the IPCC’s integrity and trustworthiness.”

    It just might qualify as conspiracy to violate the law. The prosecutors must decide. However, once again the Warmista prove that their arrogance knows no bounds, not even the law.

    Nice post, John. You are one keen observer who has follow through.

  78. RDCII
    Whoops, you left out “secretly”.
    What evidence is there that it is secret? Most organisations like the IPCC have email systems and expect people on their business to use them. I very much doubt that this one is secret.


  79. In the meantime, we look for Rep. Henry Waxman’s outrage over Abramoff to prove it was also not political, and come down hard on the practice he so aggressively condemned and pursued, demanding preservation of records, threatening subpoenas, the whole works. With our request, that’s essentially what we’ve done, and we’d appreciate the company. You too, NPR.

    It’ll probably be a while before the above happens. [/sarc]

  80. Theo Goodwin says:October 17, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    “Additionally, being on/in the property of your (specific) government employer counts for FOI.”

    I wish you’d quote some real facts here. There are very strange notions of FOI being asserted.

    In fact, all FOI that I’m aware of simply says that documents and data held by government bodies must be made available by those bodies (with exemptions) to the public, on request. It doesn’t prescribe what documents they ought to hold. Or who should do what on anyone’s time. In fact FOI usually says very little about individuals at all. It’s a responsibilty on government bodies.

  81. I think Jay Currie is very polite. In my view this is the most poorly expressed “gotcha” I have ever read, and that’s including some of Bastardi’s well-meaning but indecipherable gibberish. Chris Horner is a lousy writer, full stop. He’s unable to stop himself spurting silly snippy attacks on climate alarmists (there’s no value to mentioning Gore in this piece). And who on earth is the FOIA application being made to? Here are the key graphs:

    CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

    As our FOIA request details, the UN informed participants that it was motivated by embarrassing releases of earlier discussions (“ClimateGate” key among them), and to circumvent the problem that national government transparency laws were posing the group.

    Can anyone tell? Sorry, there might be a story here but Horner has stomped all over it with his size eleventy clown shoes.

  82. stephan says: October 17, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Is real climate finished can’t access any more

    two hours later and two more attempts (John Whitman and me) and still no link.

    WUWT???

  83. Nick,

    Actually, you’re right. They could be publicly and openly trying to break the law. Most organizations try to use subterfuge when they are trying to use subterfuge, but honestly, the IPCC doesn’t seem to think it can really be caught doing anything wrong. Maybe the org really is doing something as stupid as you’re suggesting they’re doing.

    However, I would think that if this plan were publicly accessible/available, that Horner would simply provide a link to that info…which would be much more damaging than waiting for an FOI response.

    Why do you think it’s public knowledge? Can you provide a link? That would be a very helpful positive contribution of yours towards this group.

  84. Anyone can say anything in an FOIA request. Why is this news? If true it is, but there no proof of anything here.

  85. Brad says:

    “Anyone can say anything in an FOIA request when they claim CAGW. Why is this news? If true it is, but there no proof of anything here.”

  86. “RDCII says: October 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm
    “Actually, you’re right. They could be publicly and openly trying to break the law.
    Why do you think it’s public knowledge? Can you provide a link?”

    As I said, when you look behind the ranting, all that’s alleged here is that the IPCC has an email system and they would like people on IPCC business to use it. That’s perfectly normal, and doesn’t break any law. I’d expect CEI has an email system too. It probably has passwords. It’s not publicised – I can’t provide a link – but that doesn’t mean it is secret.

  87. Nick Stokes says:
    October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    Theo Goodwin says:October 17, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    “Additionally, being on/in the property of your (specific) government employer counts for FOI.”

    “I wish you’d quote some real facts here. There are very strange notions of FOI being asserted.”

    These laws were created to be applied in the broadest possible fashion. All communications belonging to a company or government office are property of that company or office. That is where the “on/in” company/government property comes from. To take an illustrative scenario, let’s say that you work for government agency X and you drive an automobile supplied by X. If you engage in communications from that car on your own time with your own equipment the government owns your communication. All communications owned by a company or government agency are subject to FOI.

  88. Nick Stokes says:

    “I can’t provide a link – but that doesn’t mean it is secret.”

    Well, no, it’s not a secret now.

  89. The public owns the IPCC. It is funded by governments. It purports to be the global authority and its findings are referred to as the Climate Bible. The IPCC is therefore ultimately accountable to the public and that means the global public. This means everyone on the planet has a stake in this project. This is not about the U.S. or Europe or an individual country. It’s about the planet.

    Any email system that the IPCC uses must be opened up for intense scrutiny. Every message by every participant should be made available for inspection. These are public servants supposedly working on mission to save the planet for the greater good. What are they saying to each other? We certainly have a right to know. We fund their work. If some decline to participate because they insist on privacy, then so be it. Good riddance.

    Who cares if Horner’s prose wasn’t all that great? His thesis is and remains legitimate.

    It is time for the public to OCCUPY the IPCC.

  90. Theo Goodwin says: October 17, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    ” If you engage in communications from that car on your own time with your own equipment the government owns your communication.”

    Well, again I wish you’d quote some legislation, or at least some authority. I don’t believe any FOI law says anything like that.

  91. 14 Oct: CNRS, Paris: Emissions of atmospheric compounds : new scenarios for the IPCC
    Emissions of the main greenhouse gases, reactive gaseous and particulate chemical compounds have been inventoried over the period 1850-2300 by an international collaboration involving scientists from the Laboratoire “Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales” (CNRS/UPMC/UVSQ)(1) and the Laboratoire d’Aérologie (CNRS/Université Paul Sabatier)(2). This quantification has enabled researchers to propose four new scenarios that will be used in future climatic simulations of the 5th IPCC report, due in 2013. This work, which is published in a special edition of the journal Climatic Change, was supported by CNRS, CNES and ADEME…
    These scenarios will be integrated in climatic simulations of the future by most climate modelers. Such developments will be used to draft the next IPCC report, due to be published in 2013, and will also make it possible to explore the costs and benefits of the decisions taken today in terms of climate policies.
    With support from CNRS, CNES and ADEME, the two French teams have designed a database known as ECCAD(4), which is available to the whole scientific community and can be consulted at http://ether.ipsl.jussieu.fr/eccad.

    http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1921.htm

  92. I don’t meant to sound stupid here, but can someone explain this to me in simple English?! There are way too many letters (representing forms, firms, and freaks) that you can’t keep them straight, sentences that are entire paragraphs long, and is clear as mud to people that couldn’t afford college, like me! Seems to be something I should be interested in….

    [REPLY: Leanne, yes, if you are new to this discussion, there are no stupid questions. You can browse throught this site and find quite a bit. Commenters can point you to more information. Welcome. REP]

  93. This does not make sense. It almost sounds as if the IPCC believes it has something to hide. I am curious what subjects the hidden emails are related to.

    This is odd. The Obama White House did appear to promise a open and transparent government. One would assume the open and transparent policy would include matters related to science. Perhaps climate science is the exception.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

    FROM: Peter R. Orszag, Director

    SUBJECT: Open Government Directive
    In the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, issued on January 21, 2009, the President instructed the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue an Open Government Directive. Responding to that instruction, this memorandum is intended to direct executive departments and agencies to take specific actions to implement the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration set forth in the President’s Memorandum. This Directive was informed by recommendations from the Federal Chief Technology Officer, who solicited public comment through the White House Open Government Initiative.

    The three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration form the cornerstone of an open government. Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the Government is doing. Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that their government can make policies with the benefit of information that is widely dispersed in society. Collaboration improves the effectiveness of Government by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the Federal Government, across levels of government, and between the Government and private institutions.

    This Open Government Directive establishes deadlines for action. But because of the presumption of openness that the President has endorsed, agencies are encouraged to advance their open government initiatives well ahead of those deadlines. In addition to the steps delineated in this memorandum, Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this year issued new guidelines1 for agencies with regard to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). With those guidelines, the Attorney General reinforced the principle that openness is the Federal Government’s default position for FOIA issues.

  94. Couldn’t this be called: “Horner finds “the Big Picture” on cloud feedback” – in WUWT fashion?

  95. Leanne Musson Watts says:
    October 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm
    There are way too many letters (representing forms, firms, and freaks) that you can’t keep them straight, sentences that are entire paragraphs long, and is clear as mud to … me!

    I have to agree. If we want to attract a larger audience for our ideas, we need to boil things down better. This post has a lot of weaving together of issues which is intended to add context for highly initiated readers but must be nearly incomprehensible to someone who has not been following events for several years. The press release at the Competitive Enterprise Institute does a better job.

  96. It’s taking some time, probably because of all of the graft that’s to be lost, but the wheels are definitely coming off of the “global Warming/Climate Change/whatever bus.

  97. Leanne Musson Watts says:
    October 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    I don’t meant to sound stupid here, but can someone explain this to me in simple English?

    A few of the letters that took me a while to understand.

    IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change * On this blog considered to be the bad guys who promote alarmist views / end of the world because of CO2

    MSM = Main Stream Media * 90% of the time is on the side of IPCC

    The Hockey Stick = A graph generated by a scientist named Mann which somehow was able to loose the medieval warm period ( MWP) and the Little ICE Age. Sometimes known as hide the decline.

    Along with the above there are about 100 more common ones. After reading this for close to a couple months those are just starting to make sense on the surface.

    Stay awhile and read, make your own conclusions. No one here will ask you to follow a belief blindly. Quite a few of the regulars here are scarey smart, I am not one of them!

  98. Leanne Musson Watts says:
    October 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    I don’t meant to sound stupid here, but can someone explain this to me in simple English?! There are way too many letters (representing forms, firms, and freaks) that you can’t keep them straight, sentences that are entire paragraphs long, and is clear as mud to people that couldn’t afford college, like me! Seems to be something I should be interested in….

    All disciplines have evolved technical jargon (language), which can be quite daunting to the uninitiated. Don’t be intimidated. There is a glossary, at the top of the page, if the term or it’s abbreviation is not there: try:

    http://www.answers.com

    You will find yourself looking up fewer and fewer terms over time. Soon you will be techno-babbling, with the rest of us. As far as this thread goes, I will leave it to someone with a gentler tongue, to summarize fairly and simply. You must first familiarize yourself with the recent climategate and the whole Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) saga. Welcome and good-luck! GK

  99. While I was checking the above reference link at answers.com, I discovered that being discomforted by long words, technically is described as:

    Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia

    That is what technical jargon can create. Something that is of no use to the people who suffer from it! GK

  100. I’m just a high school science teacher, but even I know that any correspondance that I am involved in that deals with a student is subpoenable by that student’s parents. This is true if I am using my classroom computer or my personal iPhone in my own bedroom from my own gmail account. I’m a public employee, everything I do can be scrutinized by the people who hire me, which are the citizens of California. If I tried to hide something I could be in a world o’ hurt. Why should the IPCC be any different?

  101. Nick,

    Again, you are correct that some of what people are saying isn’t in the FOI legislation.

    That’s because it’s in other legislation concerning the fact that work product created on public time with public resources belongs to the public.

    Think of it this way: let’s assume that this is true, that the IPCC specifically said this was their intent:

    “As our FOIA request details, the UN informed participants that it was motivated by…and to circumvent the problem that national government transparency laws were posing the group”.

    Now, if the scientists were doing IPCC work at home, the whole “IPCC” special mailing network wouldn’t be necessary. IPCC work done privately by gov’t scientists on their own time and using their own equipment doesn’t fall under FOI.

    It’s not FOI that’s being violated by individuals using the IPCC resource; it is laws that state that work product done on gov’t time and with gov’t resources is public. If the IPCC is colluding with individual gov’t scientists to steal public resources and money and hide that from the FOI laws that are supposed to provide us with audit ability to discover exactly this sort of thing, it’s a crime.

    Or to put it as simply as possible…if the IPCC said “Hey, gov’t employees that are volunteering your time to us…do the work on your own time, from your own premises, using your own resources” they wouldn’t have to create a maildrop.The only reason to create a maildrop is if they expect gov’t employees to spend gov’t time and use gov’t resources.

  102. Nick Stokes;

    You’re right of course. FOI has nothing to do with what they OUGHT to keep. Which has what to do with anything? Next time you get pulled over for speeding, show the officer your driver’s license and explain that it says no where on it what speed you should go. Let’s see how that works for ya!

    But putting FOI aside for a moment, can you provide one single solitary reason why this work should be done in secret?

  103. Well at least now we know why Trenberth keeps screaming that the missing heat is in the depths of the ocean. He didn’t want anyone to look into the clouds…

    Well they looked… and talk about generating some HEAT!

  104. Government officials use their private email all the time for beyond-FOI discussions. This is common practice. Has nothing to do with the UN or with climate change.

  105. Nick Stokes –

    I’ll take you to task on the corruption of this administration vs. Bush 41, Bush 43, and Clinton combined. You’ve got to be in denial on the fact that just about every agency in the Obama socialist camp is committing crimes and illegal actions against the constitution. As we speak there are ongoing investigations into the DOJ, EPA, DOE and several other lesser groups.

    And in every case they have blocked investigation access to information requested. Sound familiar ?

  106. Cloud2WaterGate

    Thanks everyone for a good discussion.

    Leanne Musson Watts, some people have written primers and basic info on the whole question of AGW / CAGW (“Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”) beliefs and doubts, evidence and counter-evidence. I wish Anthony would provide a list of them on his sidebar! None is/are infallible but what folk here find is recurrent patterns highly suggestive of… science, theories, human behaviour, even truth. If you click my name you’ll find one of those primers, I tried to write for both scientists and non-scientists but it’s long-ish. Good luck.

  107. RDCII says: October 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm
    “However, I would think that if this plan were publicly accessible/available, that Horner would simply provide a link to that info…which would be much more damaging than waiting for an FOI response.

    Why do you think it’s public knowledge? Can you provide a link? That would be a very helpful positive contribution of yours towards this group.”

    Oddly, Horner did provide a link – it’s to the IPCC website. And quoted it:

    “In order to enhance communication among the chapter authors between the meetings, chapter-specific internet fora will be available which are only accessible to the members of the chapter teams and confidentiality is protected by user-specific [sic] passwords. Additional information on the chapter forum, as well as other electronic resources provided by the TSU in support of the writing process, will be presented during the
    First Lead Author Meeting.”

    And he said it was a secret plan. Bizarre!

  108. “Yet the Mail’s recent coverage of climate change and energy issues offers a clear demonstration of how an unaccountable newspaper editor can simply ignore the PCC’s rules when he chooses to promote its own ideological views over the best interest of his readers.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/17/paul-dacre-daily-mail-climate-change

    “Paul Dacre’s climate coverage undermines his case for self-regulation of the press
    The Daily Mail’s editor ignores the rules when he chooses to promote his own ideological views over the best interest of his readers”

    It would appear that the Guardian believes that laws should be made to prevent the media from displaying views skeptical of AGW.

  109. ‘ I don’t think they were equivalent. One was the WH using external accounts for WH business. The other is the IPCC using IPCC accounts for IPCC business.’

    The first three words of your sentance are correct. As for the rest of it – Considering the IPCC is intergovernmental it becomes government business so the two are linked. Therefore documentation should be available to anyone requesting it.

  110. @Leanne Musson Watts says:
    October 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Welcome to where everyone knows there right, backed up by links to the internet.

    You will find that the comments here are far higher in interllectual comment from your usual name calling (Well most anyway).

  111. JohnWho says:
    October 17, 2011 at 5:28 am

    Somebody tell me one more time that there isn’t a conspiracy.
    ==========
    what? you want US to lie to you as well?
    masochist:-)
    yeah the overpop food shorts and climate scams all come from a real small source group, and they started the UN and all the rest. supposed advice from external sources is neither honest or meant with good intent. it suits an agenda.

  112. LazyTeenager says: October 17, 2011 at 5:23 am
    Sounds like Chris Horner is trying to channel Glen Beck.

    Please bring back the other America Tradition Institute guy. I may not agree with him but at least he sounds sane. Chris is spinning so fast you could use him to power an ultracentrifuge to separate uranium isotopes.

    REPLY: Ditto what I said to Nick Stokes – Anthony

    Yup Lazy Teen, reads like Horner covered most known variations and reported ranges and threw the net for any uncertainties he presumes from experience observing previous patterns. Might be some new isotopes get thrown out from this spin. And that is good. Good science.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/ostp_ipcc_elec_comm_foia1.pdf

  113. G. Karst says:
    October 17, 2011 at 10:42 pm
    While I was checking the above reference link at answers.com, I discovered that being discomforted by long words, technically is described as:

    Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia

    you missed a “p” out mate

    Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia ;-)

  114. Regarding Nick Stokes says:
    October 18, 2011 at 1:49 am

    “Oddly, Horner did provide a link – it’s to the IPCC website. And quoted it:”

    “In order to enhance communication among the chapter authors between the meetings, . Additional information on the chapter forum, as well as other electronic resources provided by the TSU in support of the writing process, will be presented during the
    First Lead Author Meeting.”
    “And he said it was a secret plan. Bizarre!”

    Yes Nick, perhaps the plan to define for Govt employees a cover (cloud) wherby their communication with the IPCC may be kept safe from FOI laws was not secret, so what? Are you not misssing the point? Let me pull the operative words for you…”chapter-specific internet fora will be available which are only accessible to the members of the chapter teams and confidentiality is protected by user-specific [sic] passwords” The intent is clearly to keep communication, which is vital to public policy, exempt from FOI laws, so as to avoid embarresment and criticsm of the policy recommending processs engaged in between the IPCC and govt figures. And you upport this why?

  115. So the IPCC is changing some parts of how some of its participants may communicate and the CEI is upset that they were not better informed on this. Yes Mr. Watts, you may have found the last nail in the AGW coffin. It is obvious that if the CEI is not personally informed of these types of changes, the whole of AGW is nothing but a socialist plot meant to destroy the freedom loving peoples of the world. Good work Mr. Watts in helping to put the last nail in this worldwide plot of nefarius wrong doers.

  116. Is Nick Stokes TheFordPrefect’s sock puppet? He was using similar obfuscation, weasel words and moral equivalence arguments defending Santer/CRU/Jones/Mann et al over at ClimateAudit.

    Anything for the Team, right Nick?

  117. Have any of you seen Nick Stokes do anything else except to defend every single bad, dishonourable and downright deceptive practices by the AGW team and their patrons? It is par for course for that water carrier. Some people have no shame, honour or decency and have prostituted themselves to the altar of the CAGW scam.

  118. Nick Stokes says on October 17, 2011 at 4:28 am

    “The other is the IPCC using IPCC accounts for IPCC business.”

    Nick, to correct you:

    “The IPCC, a supposedly scientific body funded by public money, using private and hidden accounts for public business”.

  119. The CEI FOIA request quoted this IPCC website entry for WG I:

    IPCC Website – “Lead Author Meetings are important steps towards the preparation and finalization of the assessment documents. They are therefore considered to be specific closed fora for predecisional discussions. As such, these discussions remain confidential and related documents including emails and preliminary versions of text or figures are not public; they should not be cited, quoted or distributed.”

    So, the IPCC claims the public can see IPCC decisions but the public cannot see the process of making the decisions. That is unacceptable. The IPCC says it is transparent and open, then the IPCC says it isn’t transparent and open. That is unacceptable. This climate stuff is public interest and it is gov’t funded, yet we cannot see the decision making process of the IPCC. That is unacceptable.

    The IPCC is denying me climate assessment information by hiding behind bureaucratic legalisms to hide their decision making processes. That is unacceptable.

    There should be nothing to hide. The IPCC behavior is very suspicious . . . . no wonder trust is lost.

    John

  120. Theo Goodwin says:
    October 17, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    John Whitman says:
    October 17, 2011 at 9:14 am

    “If this comment by Brune is confirmed it implies that the IPCC had an intention to avoid info exposure by FOIA. The intent to avoid, if confirmed, is another very damning piece against the IPCC’s integrity and trustworthiness.”

    It may not be important semantically, but the law seems to treat avoidance and evasion differently.

    ie. Avoiding taxes is legal and prudent but evading taxes – sends you to jail. Evasion involves subterfuge.

    We probably should be saying evading or evasion of the FOIA requirement and intent. GK

  121. sceptical says:
    October 18, 2011 at 5:48 am

    It is obvious that if the CEI is not personally informed of these types of changes, the whole of AGW is nothing but a socialist plot meant to destroy the freedom loving peoples of the world.

    No, it’s been obvious that CO2 = CAGW is nothing but a gigantic Propaganda Op. “meant to [loot and] destroy the freedom loving peoples of the world” and that the ipcc and the latte’ Commie, Obama, are still trying to do it by whatever means necessary that they can get away with.

    So what is it about individual free thought, freedom of information, freedom, the U.S. Constitution, and doing real science that bothers you so much? Losing your free lunch?

  122. @Nick Stokes

    Are these actions legal? Possibly. Legality can only be determined by a court of law. But judging behavior strictly by it’s legality is the lowest common denominator and is often used to justify nefarious actions. Usually this is a refuge used by people of low character.

  123. G. Karst says:
    October 18, 2011 at 7:47 am

    It may not be important semantically, but the law seems to treat avoidance and evasion differently.

    ie. Avoiding taxes is legal and prudent but evading taxes – sends you to jail. Evasion involves subterfuge.

    We probably should be saying evading or evasion of the FOIA requirement and intent. GK

    G. Karst,

    I think your distinction is correct. Thanks for bringing it up.

    When I used the words “implies that the IPCC had an intention to avoid info exposure by FOIA”, I was thinking it is against the principle of transparency and openness . . . . therefore the IPCC was in violation not only of their own publically stated position on openness and transparency, but also in violation of the US gov’ts truth in gov’t policy if US gov’t employees (like Ms Abbott) were involved in the IPCC.

    John

  124. TO: FOIA legal beagles

    Are there any legal FOIA beagles out there willing to offer some wisdom on the part of the CEI FOIA that goes into Exemption 5 (predecisional info)? It would be helpful.

    NOTE: There were some comments over at lucia’s place by commenter George Tobin (Comment #84053 @ October 18th, 2011 at 9:51 am on post ‘An IPCC backchannel ‘[…]‘ to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA?).

    John

  125. Venter says:

    “Have any of you seen Nick Stokes do anything else except to defend every single bad, dishonourable and downright deceptive practices by the AGW team and their patrons? It is par for the course for that water carrier. Some people have no shame, honour or decency and have prostituted themselves to the altar of the CAGW scam.”

    Repeated for effect.

  126. Government and government-funded organisations need to be transparent in terms of making information available to the public.

    At the same time, there also needs to be a degree of confidentiality, for example for security reasons or where people need to be able to communicate “freely and frankly” without fear that their words will be used against them.

    How each organisation balances these sometimes competing requirements is up to them, subject of course to legal requirements and the need for transparency.

    It’s difficult to know the exact issues in this case, since Chris Horner has exceeded his own very high bar for incoherence, but given a requirement for confidentiality, there is nothing wrong in principle with an organisation providing a secure means of communication.

    In fact, in the light of recent incidents of email hacking/leaking, the IPCC would be remiss not to provide the most secure facility possible.

  127. Brendan H says:
    October 18, 2011 at 11:09 am

    // for example for security reasons or where people need to be able to communicate “freely and frankly” without fear that their words will be used against them. \\

    Pretty sure this is not a CIA operation. Using their own words against them is exactly what is needed. This is not a military or intelligence operation no privacy attaches… This is Climate Science bought and paid for with Tax dollars. I believe the only mistake Chris made was requesting the FOIA to early. Given enough time and rope this group will assuredly hang themselves.

    // there is nothing wrong in principle with an organisation providing a secure means of communication. \\

    I agree it will ensure that when the data is turned over it will be of quality.

    There is a time and place for all things. This is neither.

  128. I think we can at least congratulate IPCC for its “Team-effort.”

    Would not be good if others (the people) could read mails about “changing the peer review as we know it”, or any “travesty’s”, or about “fudge factors”, or “hiding any declines”, or some lone tree in Yamal, or whatever is going on behind the scenes.

    Must close ranks and keep the others out. Very important.

    It is all just another day at the office.

  129. martyn says:
    October 18, 2011 at 5:14 am
    you missed a “p” out mate

    What’s scary is that you actually picked up on that.

  130. Venter says: October 18, 2011 at 6:45 am

    “Have any of you seen Nick Stokes do anything else except to defend every single bad, dishonourable and downright deceptive practices by the AGW team and their patrons? It is par for the course for that water carrier. Some people have no shame, honour or decency and have prostituted themselves to the altar of the CAGW scam.”

    No.

    I use his mere presence to indicate something dishonest is being hiden by these alarmists. Works like a charm.

  131. [Bogus email address – a valid email address is required to comment here, see the policy page – Anthony]

  132. Brendan,

    Yes, the email system should be made as secure as possible. Everyone’s email system should be secure. Nobody wants people who don’t belong to the IPCC tampering with their communications. This is pretty much true for all organizations, though. Everyone should have a secure system. This seems pretty obvious to me. Not sure why this issue needs to be raised.

    The content of the IPCC emails is another matter entirely. Public servants cannot assume that they have the same right to privacy that is enjoyed in the private sector. This is even more important for the IPCC because their findings could have a potentially gigantic (literally) impact on economies if politicians decide to act on these findings. Actually, countries have already acted on the findings, which now appear to be in doubt.

    Every message that they write must be made public. That is the bottom line. There is too much at stake here. The time for more stupid cat and mouse games with the public has past. The reputation of climate science has suffered serious damage, and opening the IPCC would be a great first step to restoring the joke that has become climate science.

  133. This article cheapens wattsupwiththat.com. The second paragraph in the news “article” is one giant run-on sentence. It poorly tries to smear Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Obama, all in an article about IPCC practices? What is this, some kind of Newsmax op-ed piece?

    If this site wants to remain credible, it needs to refrain from providing a soapbox for such immature language.

  134. Chris Horner says
    for a backchannel ‘cloud’ established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.
    ——–
    Let’s look at this ‘cloud’ thing.

    Cue sinister music and Mike Myers playing Dr Evil making air quote gestures around the word cloud.

    Chris is trying really really hard to give the impression that there is something sinister, underhanded and extra legal about using the ‘cloud’. The truth is using the ‘cloud’ is subject to legal process like everything else including FOAI and the issuance of subpoenas etc.. As far as I know Chris Horner is a qualified legal practitioner and therefore he should know that. If he does not he is incompetent.

    Chris does not mention which ‘cloud’ service is being used. I am sure he knows. If he told you it was the microsoft cloud, the apple cloud, the amazon cloud or the google cloud it would not seem so sinister.

    Chris reckons the ‘cloud’ is being used communications back channel. Those of you who use email know that it has various limitations such as file size. To solve this problem people often use drop boxes. There is nothing sinister about using drop boxes. Drop boxes have perfectly legitimate uses.

    Chris reckons the backchannel was set with the intent to ‘hide’ communications. How does he know what the intent was? Does he have a document from the IPCC saying that is the intent or did he simply read their minds?

    Altogether there is too much framing here. Too much information is being kept hidden. I am deeply suspicious that this is being done to give a false and misleading impression by allowing peoples imagination to fill in their own favorite story line.

    Until there is actual evidence in the form of actual IPCC documents I am calling this spin.

    REPLY: Call it whatever you want, your anonymous opinion is of no consequence. At least Mr. Horner has the courage to put his name to his words, and to challenge in the full glare of sunshine, unlike you. – Anthony

  135. I’ve had a look at the Chris Horner’s FOAI request.

    It seems that the information about secretive illegal activity Chris is referring to comes from a announcement on the IPCC’s very own website. Evidently it is the view of the IPCC that it’s subject to the FOI laws and that it’s internal prepolicy discussions are protected as specified in those very same laws.

    Chris has come up with a technical legal argument that amounts to the conclusion that the IPCC both is and is not subject to FOI. In effect if this argument is correct the IPCC is more exposed under FOI than is a US government agency, especially to the extent that it uses seconded US government employees. It’s quite a clever argument, though I would say that it defeats the intent of the FOI laws.

    So sorry guys, no illegal plots.

  136. LazyTeenager, Horner doesn’t argue the IPCC is subject to the FOIA; he argues communication between a government agency and the IPCC is subject to the FOIA. He’s correct. The only exception would be if the IPCC were acting as an outside consultant to an agency as part of the deliberative decision-making process within the agency.

  137. When a politician makes a big deal of promising something, e.g. “transparency”, brace for a blast of the opposite. The Big Lie is meant to provide cover for getting things rolling so far and fast they can’t be stopped.

    As for LT, there is no Warmist malfeasance too egregious for him to indignantly justify.

  138. LazyTeenager says: In effect if this argument is correct the IPCC is more exposed under FOI than is a US government agency, especially to the extent that it uses seconded US government employees.

    There’s no question that communication between a government agency and an outside organization is more exposed under the FOIA than communication within or between agencies. One of the most commonly used exemptions, Exemption 5, applies exclusively to “Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by either the deliberative process privilege or the attorney work-product privileges.”

    It isn’t “especially to the extent that it uses seconded US government employees”; it’s simply “to the extent it uses seconded US government employees.” We pay the salaries, we have access to the information.

  139. Kim, where are you? We need a poetic break.

    Drivin’ that train
    High on methane
    Choo Choo Pachurri you better
    watch your speed
    Trouble ahead
    Trouble behind
    and you know that notion
    just crossed my mind

    Apologies to J. Garcia and R. Hunter.

  140. JeffD: “Pretty sure this is not a CIA operation.”

    I was speaking in general terms of “government and government-funded organisations”, rather than in specifics. The security consideration was just an example.

    “Using their own words against them is exactly what is needed.”

    Which is part of the problem, as we saw with the Trenberth “travesty” comment.

  141. Dickens Goes Metro: “Public servants cannot assume that they have the same right to privacy that is enjoyed in the private sector.”

    Agreed. But that doesn’t mean they should have no right to privacy at all.

    Sometimes a public servant will have to give advice, eg about the trustworthiness of other parties, that could be damaging if made public. At other times, policies will still be under development, or controversial policies may need to be discussed.

    And on many topics, including in climate science, there will be areas of robust disagreement. In these circumstances, people need to be able to speak freely without having to second-guess how their words might be interpreted or used against them.

    Where you draw the line between transparency and privacy in this and any other case becomes a matter of judgement depending on the case. But as a matter of principle, I don’t see open-slather as a viable option.

  142. The exemptions you mention are soft; they apply until a genuine policy issue is at stake, or a question of malfeasance, etc. Then they must yield and give way. And they certainly do not apply to the nitty-gritty of government-sponsored scientific research.

  143. Brendan H: And on many topics, including in climate science, there will be areas of robust disagreement. In these circumstances, people need to be able to speak freely without having to second-guess how their words might be interpreted or used against them.

    And in formulating policy within a government agency, those discussions are protected from the FOIA by the previously mentioned Exception 5. What generally aren’t protected are discussions between agencies and non-agencies. Federal agencies don’t have the freedom to hide their communications with non-governmental organizations just because their words might be misinterpreted or used against them.

  144. Does anyone else find it ironic that they are storing their back-channel communications in the cloud when by their own admission they don’t fully understand the impact of clouds in their climate change models?

  145. Brendon H. said, “And on many topics, including in climate science, there will be areas of robust disagreement. In these circumstances, people need to be able to speak freely without having to second-guess how their words might be interpreted or used against them.”

    In the case of climate science, hiding the fact that there is indeed “robust disagreement” is part of the problem. Given that the current state of affairs is one of protecting a proclamation of unity and consensus, hiding any hint of “robust disagreement” is important. But, if the truth of the matter, that there is not consensus and there is still robust disagreement, were generally known, accepted, and acknowledged, then there would be no need to hide the disagreement in the first place.

    Point is that it is the IPCC that is declaring scientific consensus and it is the IPCC that is creating the need to hide robust disagreement. Consensus is a lie and the words that they need to protect from being “used against them” expose that lie.

    regards

Comments are closed.