Breaking news from the UK: Inquiries by Jonathan Leake at The Sunday Times have revealed new developments in the Climategate affair.
I previously reported about the current predicament:
Loophole in UK FOIA law will apparently allow CRU to avoid prosecution
Now, news from ICO shows that they will seek a change in the law. This communications from the ICO shows what they plan to do.
The actions of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit to thwart Freedom of Information inquiries has prompted the UK Information Commissioner’s Office to seek a change in the law so that it could seek prosecutions against researchers who commit similar offences.
Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, said in an emailed press release:
“Norfolk Police are investigating how private emails have become public.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is assisting the police investigation with advice on data protection and freedom of information.
The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland’s FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act.
The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone. The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands – we do not make it.
It is for government and Parliament to consider whether this aspect of the legislation should be strengthened to deter this type of activity in future. We will be advising the University about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information. We will also be studying the investigation reports (by Lord Russell and Norfolk Police), and we will then consider what regulatory action, if any, should then be taken under the Data Protection Act.”
If you need anything further please contact us.
Kind regards,
Gemma
ICO Press Office
020 7025 7580
icopressoffice@xxxx.xxx
www.ico.gov.uk
==========================
But wait there’s more!
Here’s the release on the new Parliamentary inquiry.
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Select Committee Announcement
22 January 2010
NEW INQUIRY
THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions:
– What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
– Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
– How independent are the other two international data sets? (footnote 1)
The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.
Background
On 1 December 2009 Phil Willis, Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, wrote to Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor of UEA following the considerable press coverage of the data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The coverage alleged that data may have been manipulated or deleted in order to produce evidence on global warming. On 3 December the UEA announced an Independent Review into the allegations to be headed by Sir Muir Russell.
The Independent Review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds. (footnote 2)
Submissions
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February:
Each submission should:
a) be no more than 3,000 words in length
b) be in Word format (no later than 2003) with as little use of colour or logos as possible
c) have numbered paragraphs
d) include a declaration of interests.
A copy of the submission should be sent by e-mail to scitechcom@parliament.uk and marked “Climatic Research Unit”. An additional paper copy should be sent to:
The Clerk
Science and Technology Committee House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA
It would be helpful, for Data Protection purposes, if individuals submitting written evidence send their contact details separately in a covering letter. You should be aware that there may be circumstances in which the House of Commons will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please supply a postal address so a copy of the Committee’s report can be sent to you upon publication.
A guide for written submissions to Select Committees may be found on the parliamentary website at: www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
Please also note that:
– Material already published elsewhere should not form the basis of a submission, but may be referred to within a proposed memorandum, in which case a hard copy of the published work should be included.
– Memoranda submitted must be kept confidential until published by the Committee, unless publication by the person or organisation submitting it is specifically authorised.
– Once submitted, evidence is the property of the Committee. The Committee normally, though not always, chooses to make public the written evidence it receives, by publishing it on the internet (where it will be searchable), by printing it or by making it available through the Parliamentary Archives. If there is any information you believe to be sensitive you should highlight it and explain what harm you believe would result from its disclosure. The Committee will take this into account in deciding whether to publish or further disclose the evidence.
– Select Committees are unable to investigate individual cases.
Notes to Editors
Media Enquiries: Becky Jones: 020 7219 5693
Committee Website: http://www.parliament.uk/science
Why was the law so poorly written? Who knows how stupidity and incompetence operate, but operate they do, but I doubt such an egregious abuse of the law was ever expected. Now that the consequences of a law with no teeth has been revealed, the politicians will correct the problem — and as they usually do, will overreact, thereby creating a new set of problems.
In the meantime, sounds like this would be a good time to file any desired FOIA requests. Bet they would be acted on rather quickly.
The evidence amassed thus far over the IPCC allegations of corrupted science is overwhelming. Yet we all expect more to follow. How far do we have to go before scientists all over the world openly shout out that the IPCC is not only not a scientific body but also totally discredited and nothing they say can be taken seriously ever again? Who in their right mind would believe a word of what they will say from now on?
No wonder some of the U.S. NOAA, NCAR, NASA and
Lawrence Livermore researchers were annoyed that their
agencies (not them directly, yet ) had to deal
with FOIA requests. The U.S. law is a bit like a duck
nibbling on your toes. It won’t take a bite out of you,
but just knowing it’s there is disconcerting.
The current British FOIA lets the duck see your toes,
then leads it away with a few crumbs of bureaucratic
bread.
Parliament could just lengthen the statute of limitations
for prosecutions to two years or more following an FOIA
violation to encourage covered entities and their covered
employees to rapidly respond to new or reissued FOIA
requests.
Refusal or failure to process FOIA requests could be tied
to independent reviews of project funding… with a
violation considered a strike against funding renewal.
Peter of Sydney (03:11:21) :
Hmm, I think you need to spend more time watching new law being developed. While I’m not close to British (or Oz) law, American write Mark Twain understood the process and several of his comments are as applicable now as they were then.
It also seems to me that you can work the system by filing a FOI request identical to the one rejected. I think there’s a time limit for a response, and after that period or after receiving a rejection, immediately take prosecutorial action.
From http://twainquotes.com/Congress.html :
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.
The lightning there is peculiar; it is so convincing, that when it strikes a thing it doesn’t leave enough of that thing behind for you to tell whether–Well, you’d think it was something valuable, and a Congressman had been there.
(That last was about New England weather, where we recently lost the highest recorded surface wind gust record. Very sad, see http://www.mountwashington.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5789 I first heard about it here at Tips & Notes.)
P Gosselin
The scam is not over yet. The person who let those e-mails out is in danger and should position themselves as a whistleblower. That means considering whether or not they tried to raise their concerns, about the data and management decisions, through the “proper channels” before leaking the data.
Now we all know about this statute of limitations, the answer is easy; however far you have progressed, file a complaint before the six months has elapsed.
Weird image caption indeed, especially “exposed due to rising sea levels”
and even more so because the image was originally used in a completely different context http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/dec/17/week-in-wildlife?picture=357062232
strange how the proponents use info to fit their needs – pushing an agenda
You guys might like this. It turns out that it was the ICO who advised Phil Jones to ignore the FOI.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=7740&message=1
Is it any wonder they don’t want to prosecute?
I don’t know about sending a Word doc – whichever release – I’d much prefer it to be a PDF. (Word 2007 allows you to save as such). Whilst I’m aware there is an edit audit trail in Word I’m not sure how much I’d trust these people not to edit anything I had submitted.
Dave Ward (03:04:29)
Thank you for the Prince Charles link.
Did you notice the graph in the video? It looks remarkably like the hockey stick!
Poor Prince Charles, I’m afraid he’s completely lost it!
Veronica (01:48:44) :
Did you hear a few weeks ago when the former chief scientist for the government, that idiot Professor King, has a tantrum when the presenter, Justin, had the nerve to even suggest that the science is not completely settled.
One of the few occasions I’ve written to the Today program, asking why there was nobody present to counter his statements, but never heard back.
Jones has placed the university in a no-win position. If they keep him or slap him on the hand, the university will be perceived as condoning this type of behaviour. If they fire him, they will appear overly harsh and draw attention to all of the other problems the emails illustrate.
Regardless, either way, the CRU has been tainted. It has lost credibility. The emails will hang over them, ready to drop in a moment.
Hmm. That actually sounds like a good thing.
Oakwood (04:07:58) :
I’ve just added a comment to the following article.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-sinking-sundarbans-1862267.html
But since it was a few weeks ago, the comment may not get noticed, unless of course loads of WUWT readers head over there and add more!
To all AGW’ers. I will keep at it till we return to the original purpose of ground sensors. They tell you when to plant, when to harvest, when to bring your plants in off the porch, and what coat to wear over your Bibs. They were never intended, or placed, to tell the temperature 700 miles away or force taxes down your throat.
Let’s return to the days of the reason for climate zone monitoring and agricultural weather predictions. That city dwellers benefited from that purpose was a non-intended but positive plus. And leave airport sensors out of the equation all together. Unless they grow wheat on the runways.
Pass the jug.
As of this moment there is no corresponding press release on the ICO site:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/news_and_views/press_releases.aspx
Which seems a little odd, perhaps someone who is local could phone the press office and ask/inform them about this press release. The number given is the correct one but does not necessarily correspond with “Gemma” who seems to work for a PR company (full email listed at the AirVent) but does not seem to be listed amongst their staff.
Alex
It may be interesting to see if the FOI debacle gets greater coverage in the media; it may well do as journalists use the FOI themselves and see it as a reasonably hefty tool in their armoury.
If they believe that it has, firstly, been circumvented and, secondly, is potentially weaker than they realised then they may not be too happy and start making noises in its regard.
Cheers
Mark
The rats, the AGW rats ……..
…-
“The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose
It’s the end of the beginning;
A catastrophic heat wave appears to be closing in on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How hot is it getting in the scientific kitchen where they’ve been cooking the books and spicing up the stew pots? So hot, apparently, that Andrew Weaver, probably Canada’s leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of IPCC leadership and institutional reform.
If Andrew Weaver is heading for the exits, it’s a pretty sure sign that the United Nations agency is under monumental stress. Mr. Weaver, after all, has been a major IPCC science insider for years. He is Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, mastermind of one of the most sophisticated climate modelling systems on the planet, and lead author on two recent landmark IPCC reports.
For him to say, as he told Canwest News yesterday, that there has been some “dangerous crossing” of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC is stunning in itself.
Not only is Mr. Weaver an IPCC insider. He has also, over the years, generated his own volume of climate advocacy that often seemed to have crossed that dangerous line between hype and science.
Climategate
Glaciergate
Pachaurigate
Hurricanegate
World Wildlifegate
and now, Amazongate
And those are just the least of their problems…”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013214.html#comments
Don’t make me send Ellie Light over there to get the files!!
@veronica (02:31:09) : “I’d just like to say to the person who leaked the e-mails and files from CRU … Have you taken advice e.g. from here: http://www.pcaw.co.uk/individuals_pdfs/helpline_questions.pdf”
Speaking from personal experience (at a university), I really really really would not bother with Public Concern At Work (PCAW). You can get the advice you need from other places. PCAW are too close to the bosses.
@veronica (02:31:09) :
Were you revelaing this information in the public interest? Have you taken advice e.g. from here: http://www.pcaw.co.uk/individuals_pdfs/helpline_questions.pdf
Have you got a lawyer?
I hope that climate sceptics and other citizens concerned with good government might help you defend yourself in court.
Is this the best you can offer us Veronica? Terrors for children. The most likely person at present to need a good lawyer is our revered railwayman, Pachauri.
There’s a provision in some areas of US tort law that would greatly improve UK law if it were to be adopted. The idea is that the limitations time period is tolled (ie, does not begin) until the actual *Discovery* of the offending action by the injured party. This prevents a guilty party from being able to run out the clock by successfully hiding the evidence long enough.
Of course people who want to leave lots of loopholes around that they can exploit (in other words, Parliament) don’t like provisions like this very much.
Es posible que SI SE PUEDE CASTIGAR. Porque el ocultamiento de datos es un DELITO PERMANENTE, como un SECUESTRO DE PERSONAS. La fecha que se debe considerar para iniciar el plazo de los seis meses, no puede ser cuando se inicia el delito, sino cuando finaliza. Y si nunca entregaron la informacion, ese plazo todavia no ha comenzado a contarse. Así se consideró en la justicia argentina para evitar la prescripción con los secuestros durante la dictadura militar.
Spanish to English translation
SI may be punished. Because the data hiding is an ongoing crime, as kidnappings. The date should be considered to start within six months can not be when you start the offense, but when it ends. And if you never gave the information, this period has not yet begun to run. So justice was felt in Argentina to avoid prescribing the kidnappings during the military dictatorship.
~ ctm
As Bob Tisdale points out, this puts the University of East Anglia in an interesting position. They now certainly can’t exonerate Jones and his team.
I anticipate a tactical retirement, on health grounds…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
I have not seen a link to this article on WUWT yet (apologies if there has already been one). This would seem to be pretty startling news, that Professor Beddington, The UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, has said that the impacts of GW have been exagerated by some scientists and that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who question AGW. He also condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.
With apologies for any repetition (I did comb thru the thread but may have missed): please will someone who knows give chapter and verse for the 6-month limitation? It is not in s77 of the FOIA (or anywhere else in the Act) so far as I can see, but I am no lawyer!