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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please don’t get too excited; inquiries such as this in the UK are usually carefully controlled to ensure the ‘correct/sound’ conclusions are achieved.
The inquiry will be bombarded with well-orchestrated submissions from government and UN funded scientists. The peers to the CRU gang around the world will fight fiercely to preserve their ‘snouts in the trough’ financial status.
The sceptics using real science will probably be outnumbered by several tens to one and then subjected to a deliberate ridiculing process by the government funded alarmists. In other words, it is likely to be a complete whitewash – cover ups, that’s what we are good at in the UK.
Our socialist leaders are obsessed with ‘climate change’ and the need to broadcast their supposedly green credentials – we have an election coming up in the next few months. Unfortunately, the opposition Conservatives are pathetically bleating from the same song sheet.
I therefore urge your readers to make as many scientifically well argued and factually based submissions on CRU practices as possible. After all, there is always an outside chance that the inquiry will not be a typical British whitewash.
A little OT, but the BBC is doing its usual jig to ignore the actual issue:
http://blackswhitewash.com/2010/01/27/bbc-charting-unknown-climate-scandal-waters/
However the involved people could invoke the Habeas Data principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Data
As their “privacy”, no matter how punishable, was affected.
Prince Charles is well known for talking to trees. No wonder he feels at home talking to the CRU “scientists”.
Cooking school. How about an award for culinary prowess to Jones?
Listen up Pamela has a teaching moment!!
Actually a learning opportunity.
The rats now flee from the ship.
Regardless of the 6 month issue, it is no surprise nothing came of prosecutions from the FOI’s Commissioner’s Office given they were teaching Jones & Co. how to avoid the FOI in the first place:
JONES ON 20.AUG.2009: “Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond -advice they got from the Information Commissioner…. The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.” [1219239172.txt]
Breaking Story: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/uea-was-advised-by-ico-to-ignore-foi/
Tell Andrew Weaver to kewl his jets. If he speaks out, he can forget obtaining “peer review” for EVAH!!!
Richie P
I am a supporter of the “whistleblower”. I am cautioning him / her to position themselves as a whistleblower rather than a leaker. I am advising them to get legal support from wherever he / she can in case his / her name comes out during the impending CRU investigation by the Science and Technology Select Committee. I’m not trying to scare anyone, just offer sensible advice. He / she will probably get revealed by the investigation and is likely to lose his or her job, unless he / she can show that all other avenues of appeal against CRU’s wacky behaviour were exhausted and he / she was forced to whistleblow against their potentially illegal and / or morally dubious practices.
There was the case recently of a nurse who thought patients were being neglected in the hospital where she worked. She chose to whistleblow by taking a hidden camera on to the ward on behalf of a current affairs TV programme (Panorama) who exposed the neglect. Although she was right and working in the patients best interests, she lost her job. I am not clear whether she followed any official whistleblowing procedures and was ignored, or whether she just did what she did off the cuff as it were.
It is important to show that concerns were raised through the proper channels but ignored, before resorting to sending a bunch of damning e-mails to public websites.
CYA
b) be in Word format (no later than 2003)”
That nicely eliminates just about everyone.
—–
You can back save to previous versions.
maz2 (06:42:18) :
There is one item lacking in your list, and a very sensible one:
AstroGate
Which involves, among others, the harsh opposition to accept any “transgressions” to the “Holy Creed” of the Big Bang, Dark Matter, Black Holes, Anti-Matter, Curved Universe, Strings Universe, etc.
As the one represented by the Plasma Universe, which means really a key to unravel all these phantasies and making possible a simple comprehension of reality.
The first two commas should be deleted and “sought after” should be hyphenated.
Reply: I added the commas after the first comment in order to clarify. I had considered hyphenating as you suggest but I’ll leave it for Anthony to decide. ~ ctm
It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands – we do not make it.
Continue to apply first rule: don’t believe the ICO re: “the law as it stands”.
Veronica, the leaker also has the ‘Public Interest’ defence to fall back on, the UK MP’s expense claim leakers were not even investigated let alone found or charged as it was thought there was no possibility of a conviction by a Jury as the subject matter was of real public interest.
The leakers in this case were ex army guys bought in to black out personal details, address’s from receipts etc, they were thought to be more secure based on their military background. However their direct experience of Govt mismanagement of armed forces equipment availability based on cut budgets etc made their blood boil at the site of all the money being claimed and the rest is history. A Gordon blunder again.
Don Keiller (02:17:02) :
Chris Holland was not the only one to make a FOI request for the CRU data.
I did as well.
The ICO and the FOI Law is a shambles- only yesterday I was on the phone to them about to enquire about this 6 month expiry issue. I was passed from one person to another. No-one was apparently familiar with the FOI Act!
I was eventually asked to put my question about the 6 months expiry issue in writing! (which I have done).
I think I’m pretty sure what the answer will be!
There is nothing stopping you from seeking out a public attorney or a local constabulary and “swearing out an information”. Get the timeline clear and let the crown advocate determine whether or not the case can go forward.
Sorry it is off topic, but please vote if you haven’t already.
Bulldust (16:27:31) :
PS> There is an opinion poll on The Australian ATM:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/polls
The question:
How much do you trust scientific projections concerning global warming?
Options: Completely/Somewhat/A Little/Not at all
Please feel free to join in 🙂
Veronica, any sysadmin who is worth anything knows how to cover their trail. That is probably why nobody has been accused of leaking this information. It has possibly been made to look as if the leaked files came from the computer of someone high up in the organization, and at a time when they were in their office. That would explain why we hear no details about the investigation. There is always a chance they could be found out, but the people who have the skills to do that are probably sympathetic to what has happened.
As it is said: “Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are easy to annoy and have the root password.”
Bit of a diversion from thread topic, but under general heading of ClimateGate news from western Europe:
A good article from Germany in Spiegel Online today, titled:
”Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted ?”
Full piece at:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html
The IPCC AGW scam threatens the economic livelihood of all nations, so it is IMO important that leading media outlets in countries where English is not the 1st language also do their part to expose the growing ”gate” list; to hopefully help prompt investigations similar to the UK ICO effort in other countries that also have a significant contingent of AGW co-conspirators in public office. . . .
From Ray’s (07:45:56) link :
“Breaking Story: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/uea-was-advised-by-ico-to-ignore-foi/ ”
Apparently from British Statute, However, by section 4 a conspiracy to commit a summary only offence can only be prosecuted by or with the consent of the director of public prosecutions.
Who knows if the “director of public prosecutions” will correctly or incorrectly – I don’t know how everything fits the overall law structure – try to pursue a conspiracy charge, or not, but there is still fodder here for a large scandal involving UEA, CRU, the ICO, the British Gov’t, the British law, the practice of Science, and of course the IPCC and AGW. Fodder which I’m hoping the UK Press can feed on making all this a big Political issue.
The Public, including the Press, has power which might fuel the overthrow of some of this anti-human, anti-rational nonsense we seem to be getting attacked by from various Totalitarian and Parasitic interests.
Everyone who wants to respond to the request for submissions needs to read the thread at CA.
Dont go off half cocked.*
*this message brought to you by the makers of the little blue pill.
Dang I want roger copy editing me.
Janice
That’s assuming the person was a sysadmin and not an academic.
In the end I really don’t care whether or not any of those involved go to jail. In the end science won… or will win. I’m not ready to hold a “mission accomplished!” press conference just yet.
But at the moment it looks like the “IP concerns” are a thing of the past, and real and honest discussion about climate science can now move forward.
I believe that the end result will be in the favor of the skeptics, but I have no problem if AGW is proven valid so long as it is done honestly and openly.
Interesting. Scientific procedure is based on finding loopholes in law.
That’s like fraud. Officially.
David (03:50:50) : In that ‘Telegraph’ article, John Beddington, the government’s chief scientific adviser, states:‘It is unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth…’ OH, REALLY..???
The full quotation (via the Times Online) from Beddington is: ““It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.” (emphasis added). That last statement is both very important and makes understanding the full science very complex.
I was under the impression that any heat-trapping was done by water vapour, in the form of clouds
All part of the complexity. Water Vapour is one of a number of greenhouse gasses present in the atmosphere. Along with CO2 and Methane, they are the most common in the Earth’s atmosphere. Lots of citations for this. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
and in any case, I thought it had also been proven that CO2 increase FOLLOWS increases in the global temperature – and does NOT cause it..!
Both are true. At a basic level, CO2 causes an increase in temperature because it is a greenhouse gas. And at a basic level, CO2 increases occur after an increase in temperature because of the Milankovitch Cycle. Read here for a basic understanding of the Milankovitch Cycle: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html