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.
“d) include a declaration of interests.”
<>
I don’t think either Paul or Mosher have this quite right. In the UK, a ‘declaration of interest’ is usually taken to mean a financial interest or some other pecuniary advantage. So they want to know if for example your work is in the field of climate science.
I wonder if everyone with shares or who runs companies in ‘cap and trade’ etc etc will disclose LOL
The Times’ aerticle still refers to “stolen” e-mails. They were published! They weren’t stolen.
My evidence for that contention? The mega-police-investigation by Norfolk’s finest has not said anything; I reckon they will never be heard from hem again. It was an inside job, possibly by someone quite senior who had access to all the necessary.
Barn door, horse, gone.
From The Times
January 28, 2010
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Jonathan Leake
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Mr Green Genes (15:27:54) :
Your timeline is wrong. In that timeframe 2007-08 there were not repeated requests. Those happened in 2009.
osborne in one mail ( After the Holland incident ) researched the vexacious excuse. Its in the mails. I dont have time to dig it up, but its in there.
just read all of osbornes mails
oh crap. here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=907&filename=1214229243.txt
June 23rd. Hollands request was denied june 3rd. his appeal denied june 23rd
“B. Smith (23:05:20) :
From The Times
January 28, 2010
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data”
If I just “threw” my source code away because I moved office I’d be out of a job PDQ.
But I understand their situation. Sealed, secret political organisation, above (It appears) the law, agenda driven. Who needs the real and raw data when we have all this “value added” stuff, see? Look how much value add they get for all that research. Nice earner if you can fake it.
I really do so wish this story is reported in Australian MSM it might make Aussies wake up and smell the “value add”.
I’m a great supporter of The Prince Charles, But I think he is quite wrong to give his full support to the Climate Research Unit on his recent visit to the University of East Anglia when their work is under investigation by a number of authorities, and that the head of the unit, who he met on his visit and applauded has been temporarily relieved of his post while enquiries are proceeding. He was wrong to refer to the leaked emails as “the stolen email scandal” He should recognise that the alleged falsification of scientific data contained in the emails is an extremely serious matter, and is the reason why they were leaked in the first place. It is not a scandal if the leak proves that the science which he applauds is bogus and has been falsified by Prof. Phil Jones’s team and which in turn could lead to £billions being saved by goverments as a result. The Prince is not a scientist and in his position should not make public statements which imply that a vast and growing number of scientists across the world who are now speaking out against the global warming theory and who are far more qualified than he is to do so are not all idiots. He should also recognise that so much of the information which the GW lobby have put out to support their cause, such as melting ice caps and glaziers, polar bears and the potential destruction of the Amazon rain forests, has already been proven to be bogus. He might live to regret his public support for the team if the enquiries lead to the prosecution of some of those he has publicly supported.
Daily Mail – 28th January
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html
“The scientific unit at the heart of the climate change emails scandal broke the law by hiding data from sceptics.
Researchers at the University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for the data.
The decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office comes months after controversial emails from the university’s Climatic Research Unit, a global leader in its field, were released on to the internet.
In one email the head of the unit, Professor Phil Jones, asked a colleague to delete emails relating to a report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In another message, Professor Jones told how he had persuaded the university to ignore Freedom of Information requests from sceptics.
Others showed how an eminent climatologist admitted it was a ‘travesty’ scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.
The Information Commissioner’s Office yesterday revealed the university had failed in it duties under the Freedom of Information Act.
But it is powerless to prosecute those involved because the complaint was not made within six months of the offence, as required under the Act. “
So now it has been admitted that the CRU did wrong (even the BBC says so)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8484385.stm, it should be possible to submit a new FOI request to CRU and actually get an answer… presumably somebody is doing that already?
Steven Mosher (23:33:15)
I was trying to illustrate the thought processes involved, rather than to provide a specific explanation for what is alleged to have happened so apologies if it didn’t work very well.
The point is simply that it is very easy, by asking leading questions, to get the answer you want. Then, by a bit of verbal sleight of hand (if you see what I mean!), you can twist what you’ve been told to make it seem watertight.
I was, albeit briefly, a civil servant in the UK. I’ve seen it happen many times!
G. L. Lalique (01:44:53),
I had great hopes for Prince Charles when I was a young buck. I remember him training as a helicopter pilot in the military, and I was proud of him. I was in the military at the time, too.
But the enviros got his ear, and he started preaching about “grey goo“, and other wacky ideas. Now he’s pretty much a lost cause.
But when it comes to the globe, at least he knows one mountain range from another: click
Veronica (02:49:07),
You are so right. Now is the time to re-submit those FOI requests.
“Smokey (03:09:50) :
G. L. Lalique (01:44:53),
I had great hopes for Prince Charles when I was a young buck. I remember him training as a helicopter pilot in the military, and I was proud of him. I was in the military at the time, too.
But the enviros got his ear, and he started preaching about “grey goo“, and other wacky ideas. Now he’s pretty much a lost cause. ”
Are we surprised, catching his ear etc? And puhlease, the “Royal Family” are not British! They are German decendants.
Mr Green Genes (15:27:54) :
Imagine the scene:-
Murderer to lawyer “They haven’t found the murder weapon yet. Can you get them off my back please!”
Lawyer to Detective:- “You don’t appear to have the murder weapon. If you don’t find it then you won’t have a case will you?”
Detective to lawyer:- “True, if we don’t find it we will have to let your client go”
Lawyer to murderer:- “Keep the weapon hidden”
A lawyer or barrister can’t advise the client to actively impede the law. He may however advise his client that he has the right to remain silent.
Whether the requests were vexatious or not, it’s not for Jones to be the judge.
@MartinGAtkins (04:19:05)
I didn’t say it was for Jones to judge. I was merely hypothesizing about how CRU could claim to be acting with the agreement of the ICO, based on my knowledge of how to manipulate civil servants into saying roughly what you want them to say, which can then be finessed to complete the illusion.
Don’t get carried away reading too much into what I said, I beg you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8484385.stm
their let off is that “too much time has passed since the laws were broken”
IE, CRU breaks the law
Hi. Somebody needs to send a Word 2003 submission about the fact that it is perfectly possible in Britain to revise the law to punish actions that have already taken place. It’s not like in the US where the Constitutions prohibits ex post facto laws. From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, Ex Post Facto laws are strictly frowned upon, but are permitted by virtue of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Historically, all acts of Parliament before 1793 were Ex Post Facto legislation, inasmuch as their date of effect was the first day of the session in which they were passed. This situation was rectified by the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793.[citation needed]
Ex Post Facto criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but parliamentary sovereignty, in theory, takes priority even over this.[citation needed]
For more, see my blog at http://rasmusen.dreamhosters.com/b/2010/01/an-interesting-ex-post-facto-law-case/
There is still the issue of misuse of DOE funds…..
Mr Green Genes (04:53:38) :
Don’t get carried away reading too much into what I said, I beg you.
You made a valid point. I was just exploring the hypothetical process that would achieve the desired outcome.
Considering every AGW freeloader dismisses skeptics as fringe dwellers from get go, it wouldn’t be difficult for the UEA or Phil Jones to verbal ICO.
The ICO may have started the investigation with a preconceived notion that this was just some people harassing hard working earth saviours.
So, OK, they can’t be charged with anything… but where the requested information? How about if THAT part of the FOIA is exercised? Ther eshould at least be a SEARCH for allegedly deleted files.
OK. We don’t know if we have a “whistleblower” or a “hacker“. Why not call him/her a “whistlehacker“?
Cross-posting here but it;s important, vix my remarks last night on ‘declaration of interest’, I’ve found further and better particulars. It’s very important that only those with standing submit to the Committee.
Anyone thinking of submitting to the PCS&T CRU enquiry, please do read the thread on CA dealing with what/how etc.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/22/uk-parliamentary-inquiry-into-cru/#comment-217765
See esp this post by Jim Edwards Jan 23, 2010 at 1:21 am:
[Regarding what “interest’ means, JE explains very clearly]
“The requirements for submissions are remarkably similar to those for filing Amicus briefs [‘friends of the court’ briefs] in US Federal Appellate courts.
The Committee invites written submissions from interested parties on the three questions set out above by noon on Wednesday 10 February
[snip]
Each “interested party’s” written evidence at the end of report begins with a “statement of interest.” As in US appellate practice, the statement of interest is not a statement that says “I think the subject is cool”, or “I believe there’s a conspiracy going on.”
The statement of interest is a description that explains why the party submitting evidence has legal standing to be involved in the case.
“Interested parties” will likely include:
People who actually are involved in the controversy …..”
[He goes on to list all likely such catregories]
The whole thread is well worth readign for anyone who wishes to submit.
MartinGAtkins (08:08:54)
The ICO may have started the investigation with a preconceived notion that this was just some people harassing hard working earth saviours.
Entirely possible, I grant you. My hypothesis however, rests on the likelihood that the £15,000 a year junior civil servant on the end of the phone was so overwhelmed with all the other work on his desk, put there as a result of the present government’s obsession with secrecy, that he would have grasped at any straw given to him which would have meant that yet another piece of work would disappear. That straw could well have been CRU introducing the notion to which you allude into the equation.
The ICO is inundated at the moment and it’s getting worse. Maybe that’s the intention. Government passes an FOI law amid a great fanfare but then immediately sets about sabotaging its own legislation in secret. However, now I’m drifting off topic and into general conspiracy theory so I’ll stop!
Here’s a bit of info I found regarding the 6 months rule, apparantly it applies to a wide range of offences.
Climate data: Why ministers refused to change the law
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/climate_data_why_ministers_ref.html
The former information commissioner Richard Thomas said.
“Section 77 is a very difficult section to use. You’ve got to prove intent, which is difficult, and you’ve got the six-months limit.”
I don’t understand why Michael Mann has gone all squeaky clean now. He is as guilty as Phil Jones.
After all, he did create the famous “Hockey Stick” which hid both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
He should go too.