IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws

From Bishop Hill, such a short story that it is difficult to excerpt, and given the importance, and the continuation reference to the story I broke on WUWT, I don’t think he’ll mind if I repost in entirety.

He writes:

Richard Tol reports from the IPCC WGII lead author meeting in San Francisco:

…the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false. FoI is national legislation. These laws can only be interpreted by the relevant courts. These laws can only be changed by the relevant parliaments. The civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation, and the IPCC has no say in this matter.

This of course is a continuation of this story.

George Monbiot was winning considerable plaudits on the Dark Matter thread for his strong stand on freedom of information. He is also, of course, a fan of the IPCC. It would be interesting to see what he makes of this.

About these ads

138 thoughts on “IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws

  1. This should not be hard to understand. State law rules local law. Federal law rules state law. And the UN rules them all.

  2. Not shocked as the IPCC have proved they are a bunch of incompetents.

    It really is time for the IPCC to disband and let ignominy take its course!

  3. Wow.

    IPCC members declare themselves above the law.

    We should anticipate that those who consider themselves above the law, will also consider themselves above morality. We should expect that they will lie, cheat, and steal when it serves their purpose to do so.

    Zero credibility should be assigned to anything produced by IPCC members.

  4. Raymond Chandler wrote in `The Long Goodbye`: “There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself”! Surely this must now be the epitaph for the IPCC?

  5. This is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. What nation will give them money when there is no accountability. Time to send some letteres to my Federal Representatives.

  6. Mark Nutley says: December 14, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    It’s important to keep in mind that Dr. Tol did not give a lot of detail on this and Steve McIntyre has asked for a clarification – it’s early yet, but Dr. Tol hasn’t responded. It will be interesting to see the basis for the statement… the devil is, after all, in the details.

  7. How can any organisation declare itself to be above the law? No person or organisation can turn round and say, “Sorry, but that might apply to you but it does not apply to me.”
    It is farcical the lengths to which the IPCC is now going to try and conceal the coagulation of festering corruption which it harbours within itself.

  8. Not shocked at all.

    They hid the decline. They suppressed real science. They make “laws” without representation. They think they can tax or punish without being elected. They think themselves above the rest of us.

    “No taxation without representation”

    Canada has shown the way.

    It is time for some other countries to show some b@lls, and follow the example shown by Canada. (Usa, Brazil, China, India and Russia declined first time around without signing up, so they obviously cannot opt out…)

  9. If you read only this part of the quote, what is the meaning ? :
    “Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false.”

    Careful.

  10. This position by the IPCC and the UN generally, has some frightening implications for other UN objectives and plans, such as the entire Agenda 21 program, and various international regulatory and treaty proposals. This is very dangerous, if it stands!

  11. Well, the IPCC, strictly speaking, is not a government so they would be exempt from FOIA requirements. I believe FOIA only covers government, doesn’t it? I mean, I can’t just go to Coca-Cola and ask for the secret formula with an FOIA request. I can’t even ask for their salary database.

    IPCC isn’t a government organization. The UN is not a government, it is a diplomatic body. The UN has no force of law except that granted it by the sovereign member states (in other words, treaties ratified). The UN has no more authority than Occupy Wall Street has.

  12. How about imposing sanctions on the UN until they cave. And give their people parking fines in NYC from now on.

  13. Hell, if I ran a great money making Ponzi scheme like the IPCC I’d declare myself exempt from freedom of Information Laws as well.

  14. Wasn’t it one of Phil Jones’ many brainstorms to hide behind the IPCC?

    Well now they’re saying “Yes you can!”

  15. Richard Tol reports from the IPCC WGII lead author meeting in San Francisco:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Anyone with any ethics left should resign from this group. Staying on as a member indicates the level of ethical standards they work with. The IPCC loses more credibility every day, an asymptotic approach to zero.

    The IPCC are probably correct that the IPCC is not subject to FOIA of various countries, but the government funded agencies and people working for them and contributing to the IPCC are …
    The IPCC statement simply confirms them as the cabal that they are.

  16. If the UN can declare themselves exempt of any obligation to the legal requirements of their host country, seems only fair that the US declare the UN exempt from funding.

  17. ‘Jeff in Calgary says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:37 pm
    What nation will give them money when there is no accountability. Time to send some letteres to my Federal Representatives.’

    If any of you wonder why us Brits are getting deeply pissed off with the Euro-Union’s proposals to make us all one happy family without the need for democracy, you should take a look at this: a financial plan without any accountability, entirely beyond the law or even enquiry from the governments who themselves fund it. It’s things like this they’re expecting us to sign up for, besides all the other things we’ve already handed over to them. And those 17 poor sods already in the euro currency zone are lined up for it. Makes the IPCC look like amateurs. The world is heading this way at a breakneck pace. You are lucky to have the 2nd Amendment.

    In German but fully and clearly subtitled. And very scary. Please watch.

  18. FOI Laws apply to bodies of the government that made the law. The laws usually have a section listing the organisations that it applies to. In the US, it is to Federal agencies. So people who think the IPCC is subject to some FOI law should be able to say, whose law, and where the IPCC is listed.

  19. While I like blogs, I do not like to have the same discussion twice. The main discussion is over at Bishop Hill.
    Let me be clear: The IPCC cannot do this. It is counterproductive to try. It would be interesting to know who in the US government (etc) thought this was a bright idea, what they said about this in past IPCC plenaries, and what they intend to say in the future.

  20. That is NOT the IPCC’s fault nor the UN’s fault. THAT is the direct fault of western national governments for giving away hard, earned taxpayer monies with out proper accounting principles and the necessary transparency when spending taxpayer monies.

    The general public doesn’t care one whit how western taxpayer money is spent – and no one is answerable in western governments to their taxpayers – so why would the UN or the IPCC care either?

  21. Now how the hell does that work? I guess the IPCC just legislated itself into non-compliance of funding, because most FOIA/FOI laws require compliance to receive public funds.

  22. “How can any organisation declare itself to be above the law?”

    Congress does it all the time, Stephen. >:-(

  23. The active membership of the IPCC is doing the work of Mother Gaia. They’ve been appointed/annointed. The rest of the world’s population are just pee-ons adding to the CO2 level and as for skeptics/doubters: they are the worst of the worst. They deny the science and deliberately inhibit the progress of the annointed saviors of Gaia with time-consuming, pedantic FOIA requests. Fruitcakes! (sarc)

  24. crosspatch says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    “Well, the IPCC, strictly speaking, is not a government so they would be exempt from FOIA requirements. I believe FOIA only covers government, doesn’t it? I mean, I can’t just go to Coca-Cola and ask for the secret formula with an FOIA request. I can’t even ask for their salary database.

    IPCC isn’t a government organization. The UN is not a government, it is a diplomatic body. The UN has no force of law except that granted it by the sovereign member states (in other words, treaties ratified). The UN has no more authority than Occupy Wall Street has.”

    This is true however you are wrong in that it only applies to the government. A more proper term would be government funded activity. While its true the UN is “above” FOIA the people working for them are still required to obey the laws of theirs host country and in many cases non-host countries.

    IE in the US pretty much anything that gets federal funding is FOIA. Now can you FOIA someone from another country YES. The courts will likely support it after much fighting. However a state or even federal court can’t force another country to force its scientists to obey the FOIA.

    Now on the other hand they can force any US scientist to obey it and release any info hosted on US servers both incoming and outgoing for things like e-mail.

    Many other countries such as the UK have FOIA type laws as well.

    While it would be hard pressed to force say scientists from china to turn over stuff on FOIA the majority of europe and of course the US should be easy. Other countries such as India maybe hard but after some time and pushing would likely release the info as well.

  25. Nick Stokes. That is brilliant insight. Who are the people participating in the IPCC working for? Are their employers subject to FOIA? Are they participating on their own time and expense? Is this a science club, or a government sponsored organization?

    Keep defending the indefensible. At least you are consistent.

  26. @Nick
    I do not know the FOI law in the USA. In the UK, information that flows from the UN to the UK gov’t is exempt, but info that flows from the UK gov’t to the UN is subject to FOI. That’s a sensible rule that respects sovereignty.
    Access to Environmental Information legislation (Aarhus convention) goes a step further. All information held by the UK gov’t on environmental matters is, in principle, accessible to any UK citizen or resident. The US is no party to Aarhus.

  27. Leave it to Nick Stokes to defend the UN/IPCC’s lack of transparency.

    IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws the Scientific Method

    There. Fixed.

  28. Jeez, you can’t make stuff like this up.

    The IPPC falls into the proverbial pit and now they’re digging like mad to get out. If the climate saga was condensed into a sci-fi novel and sent back in time to my Borders bookstore in 1990, I doubt I could have gotten to the last chapter. It’s just too unrealistic to be believable. Real adults just don’t behave like this, and even if they did, no way would the whole world fall for such an obviously ludicrous con game. Right?

  29. “Stephen Brown says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    How can any organisation declare itself to be above the law? No person or organisation can turn round and say, “Sorry, but that might apply to you but it does not apply to me.”
    It is farcical the lengths to which the IPCC is now going to try and conceal the coagulation of festering corruption which it harbours within itself.”

    I beg your pardon, but the US Congress does this all the time with legislation that applies to all but them or to them only.

  30. @Nick Stokes:

    And I forgot to mention that the use of Gmail accounts to hide thier collusion from FOIA doesn’t count as scientists acting on their own time and expenses. Although I am sure their government accounts see far less action than they did a few years ago.

  31. Nick Stokes any organization or individual is subject to the laws of the country they work in expect when they have explicit exemptions given to them by that country , ‘THEY CANNOT AWARD THEMSELVES’ such as exemptions in the way the IPCC is trying to do.
    If AGW was as urgent , as important and as settled as claimed, far from seeking to hide information and obstruct peopling seeking to gain data , you expect them to be ramming the information under peoples noses .

  32. Can we get the minutes of the meeting where it was decided the their publicy funded information is secret, so that we can understand their position.

  33. Richard Tol says: December 14, 2011 at 1:14 pm
    “Let me be clear: The IPCC cannot do this. “

    Dr Tol, please do be clear. Who in the IPCC said what? And what can’t they do?

  34. crosspatch says:
    Well, the IPCC, strictly speaking, is not a government so they would be exempt from FOIA requirements. I believe FOIA only covers government, doesn’t it? I mean, I can’t just go to Coca-Cola and ask for the secret formula with an FOIA request. I can’t even ask for their salary database.

    IPCC isn’t a government organization. The UN is not a government, it is a diplomatic body. The UN has no force of law except that granted it by the sovereign member states (in other words, treaties ratified). The UN has no more authority than Occupy Wall Street has.

    Strictly speaking the US FOIA applies to the executive branch which appoints the ambassadors who made the resolution to form the IPCC, therefore IMO subject to US FOIA. Obviously, it’s not something that is absolutely black and white, therefore at the very least the IPCC shouldn’t be making a “ruling”, but rather a higher authority should decide. I don’t see any reason why an ambassador wouldn’t have to comply with a FOI request unless the national security exemption applied.

  35. The IPCC was never subject to FOIA. FOI Acts only relate to the sovereign nations where they operate. Nothing in the UN is subject to FOIA – which is a whole separate concern, since we are paying for it and are apparently subject to it.

    What we need to watch here is the pea and thimble trick. Academics/researchers who are on the public payroll either claim that they were not being paid while they did work for the IPCC, or that they were being paid but can’t tell us what they were doing because of ‘IPCC Protocols’. Either way, they were working for the IPCC, which claims to be unassailable in its science but lacks transparency and accountability. Yet, it claims scientific authority for public policy decisions of massive scope.

    Expressions that come to mind are ‘running with the fox and hunting with the hares’, or for cricketers ‘batting and bowling at the same time’.

    If your facts are unassailable, why not release all the data that is relevant to them? And why not make your processes transparent, including conflict of interest provisions that the most insignificant local authority instituted years ago?

    The IPCC model for dealing with information requests is what this seasoned bureaucrat would have recommended to avoid disclosure. It is all up to every one of the dozens of nations who contributed hundreds of researchers (and many more institutions that they worked for at the time) to figure it out. Of course, each country has different FOI laws, and some have none at all. It is a guaranteed way to get no result for many years, by which time everyone will have forgotten the question.

    It’s not about FOIA. It’s about science. If the IPCC want the world’s economies to make major changes, why are they so resistant to being transparent about their processes? And, how can they possibly justify not putting all the data on which their assessments are made on the table?

    Watch the pea and the thimble closely, but also recognise that neither are the main game.

  36. JJ says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Wow.

    IPCC members declare themselves above the law.

    We should anticipate that those who consider themselves above the law, will also consider themselves above morality. We should expect that they will lie, cheat, and steal when it serves their purpose to do so.

    Zero credibility should be assigned to anything produced by IPCC members.

    You got to it first JJ… I’ll just say ditto.

  37. Mark Nutley said: December 14, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    Anyone shocked at all by this?

    Not me. These are leftists, technocrats and they are pushing their leftist political vision and reality on the world. I believe that their mindset is that almost any means necessary to achieve their socialist utopia is ok.

    The question to me is, are we going to let them roll over us and dump their egalitarian socialist utopian hell on us? I hope not. To me, it’s “let’s roll” time and we should roll these ‘effin leftists right out on their asses.

  38. A lawless supranational force which fails to respect sovereignty of nation states, and Rule of Law, is also know as an Axis of Evil. Axes of Evil must be dismantled or a road to perdition will ensue.

  39. The IPCC is a proven pseudoscience organization.Subject to many political and environmental pressures.

    They have been exposed by exposing their numerous rule breaking (their own) .And allows many un-vetted papers and lesser,be published in the report.

    Now that they are planning to be as irrational as their reports in transparency.It is time to disband the biased organization.

  40. I do not know the FOI law in the USA.

    In the US, it’s called FOIA, and it’s been around in various forms since the 1960s. Democrats used to love it and Republicans didn’t. Now, not so much.

  41. My post from Bishop Hill’s website:

    What I fear is that we are going down the Yellow Brick Road once again. I do not blame Richard Betts for any of this and I am sure that he is reporting as well as he can. However, what he is reporting is that we are going down the Yellow Brick Road again. When it comes to the IPCC, matters become ever so complex and authorities in the IPCC cannot simplify this complexity at all and yes the IPCC will be transparent in some distant future that cannot be specified through all this complexity.

    Someone should call foul on all this and do so in the clearest and most concise language. If that is not possible then all of us should do whatever possible to make clear to the blogosphere that the IPCC is once again behaving like a family of carpet salesmen. They intend to provide no transparency whatsoever. The IPCC should be disbanded for conduct unbecoming an adult with nothing to hide.

  42. RichieP says:
    December 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm
    “In German but fully and clearly subtitled. And very scary. Please watch.” [video about the ESM]

    Thanks a lot! Our media here in Germany does NOTHING to explain this, no matter whether public, left wing or conservative. Seems like collective loss of freedom is such a natural thing for German journalists that they don’t find it worthy of mention.

    The ESM is expected to come into force in July 2012. I hope the EU explodes before it can pull this off.

  43. Who knew. People working for the UN and the Univ.s of VA and PA are exempt from FOI requests. And the Dep’t of Justice wants to pass a rule, that this administration gets to lie about FOI requests. Wonder what they are all hiding?

  44. Hiding from their decline, the Insidious Panel for Climate Clownage.

    “You think youre above the law. You aint above mine”.

  45. Obviously, it’s not something that is absolutely black and white, therefore at the very least the IPCC shouldn’t be making a “ruling”, but rather a higher authority should decide. I don’t see any reason why an ambassador wouldn’t have to comply with a FOI request unless the national security exemption applied.

    Now what you COULD do, is that if any project or study used by IPCC got US government funding, you can go to the funding agency and get information WRT that study. So, for example, if a study by Mann was in AR4 that included data collected with the help of a government research grant of grant from a public university, you should be able to go to the funding agency at the federal or state level and get the information you want but that would probably only apply to the portion of the study that is derived from public money. I don’t believe you would be able to use one small part of a larger study being government funded to get access to the entire thing.

    Imagine for a moment the discredited Dr. Michael Mann and the discredited Dr. Phil Jones were to publish a paper tomorrow that said the world was going to fly apart at 7:32 pm next Thursday and through their research they had discovered that it was all due to people doing “jumping jacks”. So he immediately takes this to the IPJJ who gathers a bunch of other data that might support the conclusion that “jumping jacks” will make the world fly apart and sends that report to the UNFCJJ. UNFCJJ recommends that a tax be placed on jumping jacks in order that people won’t do so many of them. The proceeds from this tax and additional payments from countries that do the most jumping jacks will then be distributed to poor countries and to those who are researching jumping jack alternatives such as the “sitting jack”.

    Now keep in mind, all that would be required is for countries that perform the most jumping jacks to simply ban them or limit them. There really is no need for a bunch of money to be involved. But the money is the entire point, it really isn’t about jumping jacks, heck it could be anything else, maybe claiming that fossil fuel could heat the planet up and melt the ice caps or something. That doesn’t matter. Just like in the Ecuador outtakes from “Crude” the research report is only “smoke and mirrors” in order to get the money allocated. The only thing that matters is that they can collect data that can be shown in a way that would convince people to fork over the money. The money is the real issue. If they can collect 1000 people outside the conference center in Durban, they figure they are golden.

    Now lets say some small portion of their research is a time series of micro-vibrations collected by UC Berkeley which is a publicly funded school. You could probably request information about that study that recorded the micro-vibrations but it might be hard to say that since the discredited Dr. Mann and the discredited Dr. Jones used that survey then their entire research is by extension publicly funded. But it might work, who knows. Particularly when it becomes known that they inverted that data from the survey and used it backwards, one might be able to obtain the portions of their research where they used that publicly funded data but I am not convinced you could get the entire thing out of the discredited IPCC.

    The point here is that for a mere 100 billion dollars a year, the IPCC is pretty sure the world won’t fly apart as long as that money gets from the international 1% to the international 99% and those who research sitting jacks, of course, because they need to skim off a little bit for their pals and send the rest to third world despotic governments, for the most part.

    See? It isn’t really about CO2 or jumping jacks or climate change. It’s about cash.

  46. How about this? What possible benefit for U.S Energy can be obtained from donating $635 K of U.S. Taxpayer money to Phil Jones, the British U. of E. Anglia’s CRU, and his Church of Global warming? Read the response from the U.S. D. O. E. to my FOIA request, and then weep for our nation:

    Office of Science

    Memorandum

    TO: Robert Paglee

    Subject: Financial Support/ Grants for Climate Research, Response to SMART Ticket#Hqdoclog2011-1208

    1.0 Department of Energy, DOE, does (yes) provide financial assistant to British Universities, i.e Anglia University, UK.
    2.0 SUMMARY:
    POC; Phil Jones with Program, BER
    Address: Norwich NR4 7 TJ, UK
    Phone 441603591484
    Type: Educational Grant
    Amount : (2011) 198,485 (negotiated down from $207,887)
    211,344 (cont. 2012 Negotiated from 217,956)
    225,301 (cont. 2013 Negotiated from 226,264)
    The Biological and Environmental Research Division, BER , regarding Climate Research and Grants Support can all be located under the Department of Energy, Office of Science website. There you can find a plethora of information regarding how to gain financial support and grants for Universities with funding opportunity announcement templates to view also. (http://science.energy.gov/programs/) select BER under programs.
    BER has a list of standing Funding Opportunity Announcements listed in their website that you can view, offering what the paperwork you submit will eventually look like. You then will be instructed to go to the grants website to apply for any and all grants for your University on: http://www.sc.doe.gov/grants/
    The Office of Science requires the submission of all financial assistance applications through Grants.gov.
    Grants.gov allows organizations to electronically find and apply for competitive grant opportunities from all Federal grant-making agencies. Grants.gov is THE single access point for over 1000 grant programs offered by the 26 Federal grant-making agencies. Once you have entered all o fyour information the information will be forwarded to DOE grants office.
    BER Offices can be reached directly at the Germantown Location at: SC-23 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874 (301) 903-3251

  47. Curiousgeorge says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    This position by the IPCC and the UN generally, has some frightening implications for other UN objectives and plans, such as the entire Agenda 21 program, and various international regulatory and treaty proposals. This is very dangerous, if it stands!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes it most certainly is given the UN’s “Commission on Global Governance” and their stated stance on National sovereignty.

    “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” ~ UN Commission on Global Governance

    One of the primary thrusts of Our Global Neighbourhood was the formation of “regional blocs or unions to enhance political, economic and environmental security”. The report proposed that “Regional Neighbourhoods” be established modelled closely on the successful example of the European Union. Recent years have seen a large number of such regional unions emerging, or being strengthened, including the African Union, The Mediterranean Neighbourhood Partnership, the Gulf States Coalition, and the proposed North American Union. The report also recommended a gradual reduction in the sovereignty of independent states, arguing strongly in favour of international “courts of accountability”, binding global agreements and significantly enhancing the legal authority of the UN.

    http://green-agenda.com/globalgovernance.html

    The last thing we need is a bunch of would be world dictators meeting behind closed doors to decide our collective fates, not that they do not do this already.

  48. crosspatch says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    “Well, the IPCC, strictly speaking, is not a government so they would be exempt from FOIA requirements. I believe FOIA only covers government, doesn’t it? I mean, I can’t just go to Coca-Cola and ask for the secret formula with an FOIA request. I can’t even ask for their salary database.

    IPCC isn’t a government organization. The UN is not a government, it is a diplomatic body. The UN has no force of law except that granted it by the sovereign member states (in other words, treaties ratified). The UN has no more authority than Occupy Wall Street has.”

    Yes, but a bazillion of its documents are produced by scientists who work for government funded universities, NASA, you name it and who are doing IPCC work on government time. The IPCC is not paying their salaries. So, how does the IPCC get the authority to protect those documents from FOI?

  49. @ RichieP says:
    December 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    ‘Jeff in Calgary says:
    December 14, 2011 at 12:37 pm
    What nation will give them money when there is no accountability. Time to send some letteres to my Federal Representatives.’

    If any of you wonder why us Brits are getting deeply pissed off with the Euro-Union’s proposals to make us all one happy family without the need for democracy, you should take a look at this: a financial plan without any accountability, entirely beyond the law or even enquiry from the governments who themselves fund it. It’s things like this they’re expecting us to sign up for, besides all the other things we’ve already handed over to them. And those 17 poor sods already in the euro currency zone are lined up for it. Makes the IPCC look like amateurs. The world is heading this way at a breakneck pace. You are lucky to have the 2nd Amendment.

    We are, and we do take it seriously: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/firearm-sales-way-up-during-holiday-season/
    Quote:
    This surge in gun sales — the best holiday sales season in three years, according to the Firearms Dealers Association — got a shot in the arm on Black Friday.

    “Black Friday sales were off the charts this year,” a TDS employee said.

    FBI stats show the number of background checks done on Black Friday three years ago pales in comparison to the number done this year — a 32-percent jump.

    “People are just coming in to protect themselves,” the employee said. “I think there’s just a lot of things going on in the world that are getting people thinking.”

    More women are buying guns than ever before as criminals get more desperate.

    Like break-ins while people are at home sleeping. It’s happened twice in a few weeks in a Rocklin neighborhood.

    TDS Guns says at least three women from the area have come in to buy a gun because as one victim told CBS13: “I’m gonna be ready for the next time.”

  50. IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws

    Just. Like. That.

    Made me laugh … like that’s going to ‘fly’ or go over ‘real well’.

    It does kinda fit into the category of “Who died and made you _____ ?” like the boy who once turned around and said to his mother, “Just who died and made you king? (”1) or “Who died and made you king of the zombies?” (*2)

    (*1 From a “Dear Abby” column by Abigail Van Buren, pg. 9A, col. 3, 17 February 1990, Casa Grande (AZ) Dispatch)

    (*2 All Things Zombie – Movie Reviews, Shaun of the Dead, 2004)

    More such lines can be found here: http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/who_died_and_made_you_king_god_boss/

    .

  51. Stephen Brown December 14, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    ‘How can any organisation declare itself to be above the law? No person or organisation can turn round and say, “Sorry, but that might apply to you but it does not apply to me.””

    The only situation where an organization might say they are above a law is when the law in question violates a higher law. A State in the U.S can nullify an unconstitutional law which is like saying they are above the law in question, but only if that law violates the higher law of the U.S. Constitution. It’s happened several times in the U.S. but most States are now intimidated to try it. Also, a grand jury can decide a law does not apply in a specific case under their review.

    Is the IPCC making some such claim here?

  52. So, essentially, in a stroke of self proclaimed ingenious plan, they made sure that most people, who tend to be rational, will view ‘em as lying c*ck s*ckers.

    And they’re beating themselves to a pulp wondering why they’re loosing the PR war.

    It’s brilliant.

  53. So, part of the group who wants a One World Government

    supports some will be above the law?

    There must be a name for such a system, wouldn’t you think?

  54. RichieP says on December 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    … the Euro-Union’s proposals to make us all one happy family without the need for democracy, you should take a look at this: a financial plan without any accountability, entirely beyond the law or even enquiry from the governments who themselves fund it.

    Well, RichieP, that’s what ‘war’ was invented for (literally: to countermand or act against such action by another), in the case of such an arbitrary and oppressive ‘stronghold’ is built.

    .

  55. These “leftists” at the IIPC are like the “rightists” at The Fed (not part of the US government, by the way, but a private corporation masquerading as a federal agency when it wants and also maintaining its private status when it wants). It took an act of Congress to get even a small audit of The Fed.

    FOI requests against the government fail all the time and FOI requests are supposed to be against the government not private individuals or groups. It is certainly an interesting legal question about how far one can stretch this when private individuals or groups get government funding.

    If my university gets federal funding, does an FOI request to my university mean that my university has to give up my transcripts to anyone who files the request?

    There has to be some limit on FOI requests to entities that receive federal funding. Where that limit is may be on a case by case basis.

    But I see the IIPC’s point that it doesn’t have to abide by an FOI request until ordered by a court to do so.

  56. This is the spirit of Al ‘D in Natural Science’ Gore telling us that the queen of England believes he is a real wizard and for us to stand BACK. This is wizards’ work and we should not interfere. If all phone lines are busy, donations can be made directly to The City of London.

  57. Remember the saying, “If it looks looks a duck, walks like a duck , …”

    How about, “If it looks like a cover-up, acts like a cover-up, and refuses to show proof, it must be a cover-up.

  58. Here is a link to a list of lead authors and others participating in AR5:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc-wg2-ar5-authors.pdf

    One of the Contributing Lead Authors represents Stratus Consulting, which was named in Chevron’s RICO lawsuit.

    Of the 309 people listed, 57 are listed as representing the USA. Universities overrepresented within the already overrepresented USA include University of Michigan (3), Stanford (3), Columbia (3) and of course UC Berkeley (2).

    Other unusual participants include The Nature Conservancy with one Lead Author; Climate Central, Inc.; ExxonMobil; and the Global Climate Adaptation Partnership.

    It’s not clear to me why 18% of the participants who are helping to write and/or revise a so-called global Climate Bible are from the USA.

    Seems like a pretty dubious enterprise to me.

  59. Garacka says: December 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    “Is the IPCC making some such claim here?”

    No. There’s no IPCC “declaration” or claim demonstrated here at all. No one is quoted. No text. No facts. Doesn’t seem to matter.

  60. crosspatch says:
    “See? It isn’t really about CO2 or jumping jacks or climate change. It’s about cash.”

    First: Bravo!

    IMO, the IPCC shouldn’t be in a position to deny any UN representative (forming body i.e.: their BOSS) any data used by the investigative panel in determining the content of their report and since the US UN representative is appointed by the executive branch should be subject to FOIA, she (or he) isn’t (or shouldn’t be) in a position to deny acquiring any information that that position is entitled to unless it falls under an exemption such as national security. So, basically FOIA requests should go to the UN representative who in turn “should” aquire the information from the IPCC.

    The other side of the coin is why would the IPCC not want to be transparent? The science is “settled” and “clear”. It doesn’t make any sense that anyone would even have to invoke some FOIA to get the data, unless, they have something to hide.

    But, as you pointed out, it’s about $ not science. A con man has to keep secrets.

  61. Steve McIntyre just posted Tallbloke was raided today in UK, all computers confiscated. It was from Jeff Id.

    REPLY: I’ve got a post up already see main page of WUWT – Anthony

  62. ‘Jim says:
    December 14, 2011 at 3:31 pm
    Well, RichieP, that’s what ‘war’ was invented for (literally: to countermand or act against such action by another), in the case of such an arbitrary and oppressive ‘stronghold’ is built.’

    Couldn’t agree more. And it will probably start in Greece. I hope to God our side wins.

  63. They’ve said the laws of physics, science and everything else don’t matter … does it surprise anyone they have contempt for all laws?

  64. IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws

    And in other news the US Senate passes a bill “SB 1867″ declaring the USA a “Battlefield” and thus allowing those declared by the president to be “an enemy” to be detained indefinitely without trial.

    Pentagon Attorney Johnson’s comments made Thursday, as reported by the AP:

    “…U.S. citizens don’t have immunity when they’re at war with the United States. Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.”

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TARGETED_KILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    S.B. 1867 Section 1032 states:

    Paragraph (1) states: (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
    LEGAL ANALYSIS: Because section 1 references section 2 as part of its requirements, Section 4’s nullification of Section 1 also nullifies the definitions laid forth in Section 2.

    S.B. 1867 Section 1031 (2):

    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS: The bill does not say “any al Qaeda operative who has committed a belligerent act.” It does not define exactly what a “belligerent act” may be. It simply includes “any person who has committed a belligerent act.” The word including is the key, because by definition “including” means in addition to the al Qaeda suspects, Taliban, etc.

    http://conpats.blogspot.com/2011/12/sb-ended-us-constitutionwhat-will.html

    (Sorry the blog is a hystrical flamer)

    Matching Bill in Congress:

    TEXT OF HR 1540 PP (Public Print – PP)(current as of 12/9/2011)

    Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

    SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
    FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED
    PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
    USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

    (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority
    of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force
    pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force
    (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed
    Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as
    defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
    of war.

    (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this
    section is any person as follows:

    (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
    mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
    September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for
    those attacks.

    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
    supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
    that are engaged in hostilities against the United
    States or its coalition partners, including any person
    who has committed a belligerent act
    or has directly
    supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

    (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposi-
    tion of a person under the law of war as described in sub-
    section (a) may include the following:

    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial
    until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Au-
    thorization for Use of Military Force….

    4) Transfer to the custody or control of the per-
    son’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or
    any other foreign entity
    ….

    http://www.dailypaul.com/192209/urgent-lets-melt-the-congressional-switchboard-on-monday-tuesday

    any other foreign entity! Is that the United Nations? Interpol or what?

    Since Janet Napolitano has declare everyone from US Congressman Ron Paul to people holding prayer meetings to every single veteran of the armed forces, FBI, Secret Service… as “Suspected Terrorists” this bill does not give me the warm fuzzies ESPECIALLY when we have CAGW fanatics saying “Denying CAGW should be declared a crime against humanity”

    After seeing what was done to the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution, I do not trust what could be done to innocent people using this. With out a strict definition of “belligerent act” It could be taken to mean something as simple as an outspoken blogger who is picking nits about how the president is running the country.

    Discussion of what “Belligerent Act” means including application to Climate Scientists. http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2011/01/24/creeping-caesarism/

    Bill HR875, the Commerce Clause and your garden: http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/trojan-horse-law-the-food-safety-modernization-act-of-2009

  65. Holy crap, you guys are getting pretty worked up about a paragraph of vague 2nd hand reporting.

    3 things: The paragraph says “Member states have ruled” – This implies that each country involved in the IPCC with FOI laws has ruled that FOI does not apply. It does not mean that the IPCC has made any decision, it has come from their respective governments. So therefore the headline is wrong, and misleading.

    Two, There aren’t any other sources about this yet. At least wait on some confirmation before getting your panties in a bunch.

    Three, I seem to recall a climategate 2 email (which was reported here at the time but seemingly disappeared down the memory hole) from the CSIRO in Australia that their usual response to FOI was to send them ALL their data. This was claimed as snowballing because it stumped FOI requesters, which is pretty funny because YOU HAVE ALL THEIR DATA (at least from the CSIRO, and affiliates).

  66. I suspect the IPCC does not do ‘law’ in the ordinary sense of it. Their ‘law’ revolves around controlling all of nature, human and otherwise, without constraint. All for the good of “The Cause”, don’t you know?

  67. Just to clarify, legally the IPCC [b]CAN’T[/b] declare themselves exempt from FOI laws. So either something is wrong with the reporting here or the IPCC is breaking a number of governments’ laws. I wonder which is more likely?

  68. Well, . . it is clear that the IPCC is admitting that they do not do real science and their data cannot be seen or might just simply not exist. They’ve been making stuff up for years, now they are waving at us the fact that their science will not stand up to scrutiny, any scrutiny.

    Lysenko directed Soviet science for years and made claims in biology that could not and would not be supported. When asked how he got the results he was touting, he said he told his scientists what he wanted and told them not to come back with out the appropriate results.

  69. Jan says:
    December 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    I suspect the IPCC does not do ‘law’ in the ordinary sense of it. Their ‘law’ revolves around controlling all of nature, human and otherwise, without constraint. All for the good of “The Cause”, don’t you know?

    Well, Jan, you are perhaps right and perhaps wrong. You have read a whole bunch of stuff based on some hearsay that Anthony read and then put on his website that about 200 people have responded to having decided it’s gospel truth.

  70. John Billings,

    So I take it you believe the UN/IPCC will provide information that is requested via an FOIA request? Is that what you believe?

  71. Smokey says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    John Billings,

    So I take it you believe the UN/IPCC will provide information that is requested via an FOIA request? Is that what you believe?

    Why do you think that Smokey? From where can you take that presumption? Is there anything in anything I have written that leads you to believe that?

    I remind you only of what I have said, and about which you should spend a few moments thinking: Other than it’s appearance on some blog, where is the evidence that this story is true? I see this link as the origin http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2011/12/ipcc-coi-foi.html and apart from that, nada. Are there any links to IPCC documents, or any e-mails? Why are you all so agitated about “the conspiracy” on the evidence of what somebody writes on a blog?

  72. geoff says:
    December 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm
    Holy crap, you guys are getting pretty worked up about a paragraph of vague 2nd hand reporting.
    3 things: The paragraph says “Member states have ruled” – This implies that each country involved in the IPCC with FOI laws has ruled that FOI does not apply. It does not mean that the IPCC has made any decision, it has come from their respective governments. So therefore the headline is wrong, and misleading.
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Let us look at the lead…
    ” the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false. FoI is national legislation. These laws can only be interpreted by the relevant courts. These laws can only be changed by the relevant parliaments. The civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation, and the IPCC has no say in this matter.”

    So as you see geoff, the point is they (the IPCC civil servants from respective member states) have no authority to “usurp FoI legislation” as each memeber states FOI laws can only be changed via whatever respective method that country has, but in no case do the civil servant working within the IPCC have this authority. It therfore follows that most of the comments in regard to the arrogancy of the IPCC (already guilty of many lies and unscientific speculation) are spot on.

    Also geoff, do you have any reason to think this, “the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material,” is false?

  73. the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false. FoI is national legislation. These laws can only be interpreted by the relevant courts. These laws can only be changed by the relevant parliaments. The civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation, and the IPCC has no say in this matter.

    WUWT? It sounds self contradictory. It specifically states that “it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material.” Then goes on to state that “civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation,”
    Orwellian in the extreme.

  74. Nick Stokes says:
    December 14, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Nick is right. The IPCC is irrelevant. They hold no power. They have no influence (unless you want them to). They can’t tell anyone to do anything. And so FOIA is irrelevant.

    In short – the IPCC will not affect anyone – only our politicians can affect our laws, our taxation, and our rights.

    Please remember this in November 2012…

    (By the way, didn’t the US Congress pull their funding last February? I hope they did…).

  75. I’m not so much demanding or even wanting to see the IPCC emails and communications. Although it might be a real hoot to read and discuss. But, there are people involved with the IPCC and other NGOs thriving off US dollars paid by US taxpayers. My first thought was from what slime did these scientists come? They take our money and spread it around as they they see fit then act insulted if we demand a receipt. Who is protecting the US citizen’s interests in these deals?
    And what’s going on with climate science that needs to be kept secret from the citizens. All we ever ask is “How did you come up with that? Can you give us the details?” They act like it’s some sort of ‘Spy vs Spy’ thing when in reality, if it’s what the IPCC is claiming everybody’s hand should be face up on the table. There must be no enemy in situations such as this.

  76. chuck nolan says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    I’m not so much demanding or even wanting to see the IPCC emails and communications. Although it might be a real hoot to read and discuss. But, there are people involved with the IPCC and other NGOs thriving off US dollars paid by US taxpayers. My first thought was from what slime did these scientists come? They take our money and spread it around as they they see fit then act insulted if we demand a receipt. Who is protecting the US citizen’s interests in these deals?
    And what’s going on with climate science that needs to be kept secret from the citizens. All we ever ask is “How did you come up with that? Can you give us the details?” They act like it’s some sort of ‘Spy vs Spy’ thing when in reality, if it’s what the IPCC is claiming everybody’s hand should be face up on the table. There must be no enemy in situations such as this.

    Chuck, you say that “I’m not so much demanding or even wanting to see the IPCC emails and communications”, but then you go on to say “My first thought was from what slime did these scientists come?” Don’t you think it might be helpful to be able to read what they wrote or see what they actually did before deciding that they came from slime? Or is it really true that irrespective of their words, thoughts or actions they came from slime?

  77. Oh, please John Billings. Much as I like the odd patronizing pat on the head to acknowledge my naive little thoughts, I actually do read beyond the 200 comments on this blog.
    I am though, heartened to learn that, in some small way, you feel that I could be right. You don’t know what a boost to my ego that is!

  78. Jan says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Oh, please John Billings. Much as I like the odd patronizing pat on the head to acknowledge my naive little thoughts, I actually do read beyond the 200 comments on this blog.
    I am though, heartened to learn that, in some small way, you feel that I could be right. You don’t know what a boost to my ego that is!

    Jan, that’s immensely cool. I’m glad you’re happy, although in no way did I intend to “pat you on the head” or somesuch. I merely pointed out that you and all the others making reference to “the cause” etc were ignoring the elephant in the room: that this story has ignited all hell and fury based on an unsourced blog. That’s all.

  79. With jurisdictions that do have FOI rquests they have been thwarted anyway. I guess it has to be done the new-fashioned way – insiderleaks. Why would IPCC not want outsiders to know what they are up to. Sounds a bit suspicious (sarc)

  80. Now , all we gotsta do is provide U.S.Marshalls and County sheriffs of many persuasions with the thousands of videos and documents and testimonials and we will have these puppies in a box in no time.

  81. geoff says:
    December 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    Just to clarify, legally the IPCC [b]CAN’T[/b] declare themselves exempt from FOI laws. So either something is wrong with the reporting here or the IPCC is breaking a number of governments’ laws. I wonder which is more likely?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I am not so sure about that.

    Does diplomatic immunity apply????

  82. John Billings says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    ….I see this link as the origin http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2011/12/ipcc-coi-foi.html and apart from that, nada. Are there any links to IPCC documents, or any e-mails? Why are you all so agitated about “the conspiracy” on the evidence of what somebody writes on a blog?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    There was an e-mail from Jones I think (maybe Mann) that backs up this claim but I am not about to go hunting for it right now since it is after 1pm where I am. You can go look for it either at the above link or Anthony’s first Climategate 2 discussion. My computer is too old and that thread will probably crash it.

  83. John Billings says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    “…I merely pointed out that you and all the others making reference to “the cause” etc were ignoring the elephant in the room: that this story has ignited all hell and fury based on an unsourced blog. That’s all.;;”
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Richard Tol based his original comment on this statement, which both he and Richard Betts agree to be accurate “As to FoI, the “confidetiality guidance” has a list of things that will be made public and says that any and all other material will remain confidential. The TSU indicated that this was done on behalf of the “governments”

    Is the “confidentiality guidance” (whatever this is) “list of things” available for the public, so that we may judge for ourselves if all the other material which will remain confidential is reasonable and acceptable? What is the TSU and what did they mean by this being done on behalf of “goverments”? This indicates that someone representing disparate goverments decided, in communication with the IPCC, what was to be available to FOI laws, and what was not.
    This is neither appropriate of legal. Both Richards are participants in the process, and I have no reason to doubt either of them, do you? Do you know the answers to the reasonable questions I have asked? Do you not think, in light of the many problems revealed with the IPCC processs in recent years, that it is reasonable to demand greater transparency in the process?

  84. Gail, this may be what is requested, posted at Bishop Hill by Mike I think.

    In email 3249, from Dec 2008, Phil Jones says
    “According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. ”
    Similarly in 2440 he says
    “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. ”

    The latter is well worth reading. He advises AR5 co-chair Thomas Stocker to delete all emails. He also advises Stocker to stick to the IPCC rules and says that they all did so with AR4!

  85. John Billings says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:54 pm
    Jan says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    “… I merely pointed out that you and all the others making reference to “the cause” etc were ignoring the elephant in the room: that this story has ignited all hell and fury based on an unsourced blog…”

    John, both Richards are educated participants in the process and I have no reason to doubt their integrity, do you? I did this post on Bishop Hill and would like to hear your answers to my questions as well.
    “RT and RB I think we need more infromation on this statement which you both accept…” As to FoI, the “confidetiality guidance” has a list of things that will be made public and says that any and all other material will remain confidential. The TSU indicated that this was done on behalf of the “governments”

    Is the “confidentiality guidance” (whatever this is) “list of things” available for the public so that we may judge for ourselves if it is reasonable? What is the TSU and what did they mean by this being done on behalf of “goverments”? This indicates that someone representing disparate goverments decided, in communication with the IPCC, what was to be available to FOI laws, and what was not. This needs to be thourghly vetted. The IPCC clearly is a political body and the examples of distorted science (if you can call it science) are very numerous.

  86. Jay says

    The UN is in the USA.
    Therefore they should be subject to US FOIA laws.
    -Jay
    ————–
    And the American embassy was in Iran so the Iranians had some fun with their version of FOAI.

    I could go on on on with examples why your principle is a bad idea but luckily others actually running the place already know this.

    If you don’t believe me make a nuisance of yourself by sending FOAI requests to the Russian embassy and see what happens. Hopefully they will be polite and patient with you and won’t accompany their annoyance with a Po pellet.

  87. KnR: “If AGW was as urgent , as important and as settled as claimed, far from seeking to hide information and obstruct peopling seeking to gain data , you expect them to be ramming the information under peoples noses”.
    Exactly right – my sentiments exactly.
    Nick Stokes, whilst you have not explicitly said so, your comments seem to suggest you support the UN trying to put themselves beyond the reach of FoI laws. As KnR says, surely the UN should be ready to give as much information as they can. Perhaps you can tell me why the secrecy is so necessary. Why should they have something to hide?

  88. @David
    It appears that the IPCC’s confidentiality guidance document covers itself and cannot be disclosed. The IPCC intends to publish the first- and second-order drafts that are sent for expert and government review, the comments on those drafts, and the responses to those comments.

    There is a lot more material, including the selection and allocation of authors, the outline of the report, and the zeroth-order draft and comments, that the IPCC will try to keep off limits.

  89. Ah! Now I know why Michael Mann aka Tricky Mickey considers himself free from FOI – he’s part of the IPCC. So easy.

  90. Proposal for voluntary compliance of FOI law by sceptics

    I would like to float an idea. It is only an idea, as I have not thought out the full ramifications – just looking for comments.

    We are constantly seeing government paid alarmists denying their obligation under FOI law to disclose relevant information. Given the limited budget of sceptics, there is only so action under the law can do. We have seen brave attempts to force compliance with the law by releasing those FOI emails being ruthlessly squashed by the police.

    Sceptics need to find a way to highlight the illegal actions of government employees. We also need a way to stop people believing we are oil funded groups … or if some are, to show that that funding is very limited compared to the massive funding of the alarmists.

    So, I have been considering whether it might be possible to set up a system for voluntary compliance to the FOI act for voluntary groups like us sceptics. In principle, this would give us the same obligation and opt-outs as government bodies, e.g. personal details and commercial contracts would be exempt. So, e.g. compliance would require publishing information on donations, but would not require publishing it in a way that would breach confidentiality.

    However, my main concern is the practicality. Firslty, whilst the information commissioner may be seen as an “enforcer” they provide invaluable advice to organisations subject to FOI law. That advice would not be available to voluntary compliance groups.

    Also the FOI rules are written for professional full-time groups and it may be practically impossible for voluntary groups to comply even where they want to. I believe in the UK there is a requirement to respond in 21 days. Given that many voluntary groups may not even meet within a 21 day period and don’t have the funds to train individuals on the complexity of the requirements, 21 days may be far too stringent. Also, the complexities of what can and can’t be released is also worrying. And lastly is the shere time and effort to respond to a request.

    I principle, I think the idea is good. It would certainly highlight the lack of compliance by the alarmists, and whilst a few alarmist groups would try to find dirt … the very fact that we voluntarily gave them the dirt would highlight the failure of the alarmists to comply where they have a legal requirement. However, the practicality may be beyond our means. Perhaps a simply system, is possible?

  91. I’ve got a little job for the Norfolk Police, The Met. and that US department, Justice? obviously misnamed, over in NY at the UN.

    TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR COMPUTERS TO SEE THE LIES!!!

  92. Richard Tol says:
    December 15, 2011 at 12:22 am
    @David
    “It appears that the IPCC’s confidentiality guidance document covers itself and cannot be disclosed. The IPCC intends to publish the first- and second-order drafts that are sent for expert and government review, the comments on those drafts, and the responses to those comments.

    There is a lot more material, including the selection and allocation of authors, the outline of the report, and the zeroth-order draft and comments, that the IPCC will try to keep off limits.”

    Thank you Richard, and you are quite helpfull. Your comment on what is not on “the list” is very cogent, but the operative word hear is it “appears’, and both you and Richard B have a very difficult time being percise, but apparently there is a percise list which we, the people of the world world who are or may be affected by every policy recommendation this unelected group of Blackbeards make, cannot see what this list consists of !! Yet some private tallbloke in Britain was certainly not allowed to make a list for the police on what to provide them when they stormed into his private home and took his personal property, despite the fact that he recieves zero Govt funds and makes zero recommendations to change how governments around the world operate. And some posters here think this is fine and a boring matter, nothing to see here, just move along.

  93. LazyTeenager [December 14, 2011 at 11:31 pm] says:

    The UN is in the USA. Therefore they should be subject to US FOIA laws. -Jay

    “And the American embassy was in Iran so the Iranians had some fun with their version of FOAI. [sic]

    Aw hell no, you really didn’t go there! The first rule of analogy is to create one when you are not drinking or on drugs, or, if you are perhaps too young as your Nom de Plume suggests. If you’re actually not a Lazy Teenager but a full-grown adult, well, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

    The original poster suggested a nation with an FOIA law, have that law apply to an international organization, on the soil of, and which is in large part funded by that nation, and, which contains some members that are citizens of that nation.

    Your analogy describes a historical event in which rabid citizens of one sovereign nation invades the embassy which, according to diplomacy, is the sovereign soil of another sovereign nation.

    [original poster] :: Sovereign nation >> FOIA request >> International Organization

    [Lazy Teenager] :: Sovereign nation >> INVADES >> Sovereign nation

    In your epic fail analogy you attempt to disparage the FOIA process (a Freedom of Information request!) and you elevate the United Nations organization to the status of a sovereign nation while simultaneously downplaying the INVASION of a sovereign nation (yours?) by another. Way to take a big giant dump on the USA. Thanks.

    Anything to thwart the FOIA process (Freedom of Information request!) I guess.

    “I could go on on on with examples why your principle is a bad idea but luckily others actually running the place already know this.

    If you don’t believe me make a nuisance of yourself by sending FOAI [sic] requests to the Russian embassy and see what happens. Hopefully they will be polite and patient with you and won’t accompany their annoyance with a Po pellet.”

    I’ll agree that you could go on and on. You just did it again (“Russian Embassy”) proving that first epic fail analogy was no fluke. Your UN is *not* a nation. An FOIA request is not comparable to one nation invading another. You have offered an insightful glimpse into your troubled thought process here. All of you wannabe world citizens ought to ponder this.

    Oh how I hope to live to see a day when that building is razed and the rubble bulldozed into the East River.

  94. Blade, nice lazy smack down, I doubt he responds. I also notice John Billings and others have not responded to my comments with Richard Toll showing why this “nothing to see here, move along” thought process is absurd.

  95. This is real easy to fix.

    If the IPCC feels they are above the law, then they must be above taking any taxpayer money received directly or indirectly from the UN or any national/state/local governments.

    Accordingly, all funding should be through private NGOs/corporations/private environmental groups/individual donations, etc.

    Problem solved.

  96. In the USA FOIA never applied to IPCC in the first place. It applies *only* to governmental agencies. You can’t serve a FOIA request on a government contractor either, only on the government itself. So if the DoE receives an IPCC document, then you can FOIA DoE to obtain it.

    If you know they have it. There’s the real trick.

  97. The FOI act in the USA ought to be powerful enough to extract whatever information is available including the emails.
    After all, it was used to release onto the internet all the CIA language training material on the grounds that it had all been funded by the tax payer.
    There are some things that will always rightly be difficult to access but nothing to do with climate change produced for and by the IPCC or any of the contributors falls into that category.
    It is especially necessary considering that these people purport to be scientists and it is a necessary part of the scientific process.
    Incidentally, does any one else worry that the world is being held to ransom b some of the most technologically challenged scientists imaginable? Harry’s notes reveal the lack of computer nous, an apparent lack of some essential skils and the latest emails seem to suggest that some of them (e.g. Phil Jones) can not even use Excel…. what? Can’t use excel and we are to believe this guy is competent to handle data arrays? manipulate data and derive meaningful conclusions from that data?

  98. All this IPCC garbage is a conflict with Britannia’s needing ever more loot to avoid liquidation. England’s national debt is 1000% of their GDP. Queen lizard needs to have weekly garage sales and property auctions to maintain her serpentine grandeur. Al ‘D in Natural Science’ Gore has convinced her that he is a wizard and can convince the masses with smoke, mirrors, and HAARP weather warfare against farmers, to prostrate themselves in terror and run for comfort and assurance to the queen’s wizards for security like in the old days. The British royals are so obsolete that they still believe this crap. The managers of the satellite AND ground weather stations providing data for the IPCC have disavowed readings because of equipment failures and black asphalt parking lots and new industrial air conditioners placed next to weather stations. We should all advise the IPCC to just shut up and leave before we lose our tempers, unless they want prison camp life with ther wanker buddies.

  99. Gail Combs says:
    December 14, 2011 at 4:52 pm
    IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws

    And in other news the US Senate passes a bill “SB 1867″ declaring the USA a “Battlefield” and thus allowing those declared by the president to be “an enemy” to be detained indefinitely without trial.

    Being “detained indefinitely” is more appropriate and humane than most of the alternatives practiced before international law began to mandate “indefinite detention” in preference to those inhumane alternatives. The President and Commander-in-Chief has always had the Constitutional authority and the linternational egal obligation to suspend the writ of habeus corpus with respect to prisoners of war, whether those prisoners of war are lawful combatants or unlawful combatants. The period of detention is determined by the period of time required for the sovereign belligerents to cease the hostilities and restore peaceful diplomatic relations, exchange prisoners of war, and/or parole prisoners of war. It is illegal under international law to prosecute a belligerent prisoner of war for the commission of any alleged crimes during hostilities, except for a violation/s of the international law of armed conflict. Only after the cessation of hostilities and restoration of peaceful diplomatic relations may a belligerent prisoner of war be prosecuted for alleged violations under civil criminal law.

    • D.Patterson, apparently you have not read the papers recently. JFK and bobby Kennedy’s assasssinations, [snip] weather attacks, The ongoing unchecked looting of the stock markets and hard earned cash of the producers of America, Fukushima, the intentional blow out of the oil well in the GoM. And on and on. There is anarchy for the Bush criminal cabal in the U.S.. Their ongoing attacks, including leaving the Hillary Clinton state department graciously holding the bag with ‘fast and furious’, as well as Hillary getting up to lie for 14 minutes straight about a U.S. Navy SEAL detachment killing Osama bin laden for the second time before they murdered the U.S. Navy SEALS involved so they would not talk. Hillary used to launder cocaine money for Bush41 back in the late 1970s and 1980s. Your assessment is hopelessly naive. When I went to college, I tried for the ‘A’s after I decided to improve my grades. That takes work. Your presentation was nice and fluffy-friendly, but I have benefitted more from eating those awful puffed rice bisquits. You seem bright enough, Let us dig. Our congress sits at less than 9% approval. That means they have been setting a bad example for years and finally got caught.. The above mentioned ongoing crimes need to be addressed and remedied. Congress has been mewling and prancing for bribes to the exclusion of all else for years now. What a damned mess.
      Study ‘Project Monarch’ as much as I have and you will desperately want to erase what you just wrote. Psychopaths run the show and they have all the guns, and guillotines in the camps. If you kiss a psychopath’s ass and do whatever they say, they will wait awhile before killing and eating you.
      But don’t feel bad here, we are all puppies in this box.

  100. FACT: The managers of the temperature sensors insatellites and on the ground all rejected their own data. there is no global warming and it all is a fraud. WE NEED LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NO MORE DOUBLE-TALKSPLITTING OF HAIRS AND other verbosities. GLOBAL WARMING IS BULL____!

  101. John Billings says:
    December 14, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    I merely pointed out that you and all the others making reference to “the cause” etc were ignoring the elephant in the room: that this story has ignited all hell and fury based on an unsourced blog. That’s all.

    Right, the following friendly reminder from wg1 to Anthony as a potential Expert Reviewer was already quite enough to indicate the ipcc’s intention to now try to officially hide all of their alleged “science”/”materials”:

    Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from
    this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review
    and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.

    Which, iirc, is also a change from the ipcc’s previously stated guidelines which Steve McIntyre elucidated a while back, partly because the ipcc was not even following them! The preservation and availability of all ipcc interaction between the Authors and the next level Oversight members was a big issue. The impermeable “cloud”, or its effective non-existence, was already being alleged. Previously, McIntyre had to pull teeth just to get the Reviewers’ comments made public as per the ipcc’s own guidelines.

    • the carbon tax and global warming FAIL is half-wit speak for the queen lizard is indebt 10 times the GDP and we have to steal to make ends meet.This is pig-splat. All thy need to do to free the people of earth from their miscreant woe is for them to hold yard sales every weeknd for the next 500 years and sell off their land holdings. After totally bungling foreign policy duties, Chaalllz and queen lizard will be lucky to live to see Willyam and Kevin grow out of those ‘Me First’ sashes. Too many people on this earth would justifiably love to see Buckingham palace and the City of London instantly fried. Now this group increasingly includes more and more U.S. military personnel and knowledgeable civilians.

Comments are closed.