In light of these recent ugly FOI revelations uncovered by the Associated Press, it makes the recent FOIA issues paper by our friend Dr. Jennifer Marohasy and the subsequent scathing Washington Times editorial about science and disclosure (see below the Continue reading line) even more relevant. Clearly governments and government sponsored institutions like CRU don’t give a care about complying with the FOIA laws. CRU skated on a statute of limitations technicality. This WUWT story from the British ICO:
…the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence…In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit.
And now we find not only did Homeland Security stonewall FOIA requests, they actively investigated the people making them:
===================================
Playing politics with public records requests
For at least a year, the Homeland Security Department detoured requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive, according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by The Associated Press.
The department abandoned the practice after AP investigated. Inspectors from the department’s Office of Inspector General quietly conducted interviews last week to determine whether political advisers acted improperly.
…
Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano’s political staff with information about the people who asked for records — such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters — and about the organizations where they worked.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38350993/ns/politics-more_politics/
========================================================
Excerpts from
EDITORIAL: Global warming’s unscientific attitude
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
7:17 p.m., Wednesday, July 21, 2010
What separates a scientific claim from mere opinion is its ability to be tested by experiment. No true scientist objects to having his theories verified; the charlatan is the one with something to hide. Not surprisingly, purveyors of global warming have proved anything but open.
In the current issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Law and Management, Australian researchers evaluated the community of so-called climate scientists and found them to be “antagonistic toward the disclosure of information.”
Professor John Abbot of Central Queensland University, a chemist and lawyer, and biologist Jennifer Marohasy studied the response of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) and the Met Office – Britain’s national weather service – to various information requests. The most noteworthy of these was United Kingdom resident David Holland’s demand for the raw data underlying the infamous “hockey stick” graph that was published in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports. This chart was the centerpiece of the claim that the 20th century was the hottest in a thousand years. The stir that Mr. Holland’s request triggered among the scientists who worked on the report was captured in the Climategate e-mails
…
Mr. Abbot and Ms. Marohasy wrote:
“Of concern is evidence of a predisposition towards uncooperativeness on the part of the Met Office, which also used spurious claims of deleted correspondence and personal information in attempts to block the release of information,”
…
None of these simple requests should have been denied or delayed. Many of those involved in purported climate science seem more preoccupied with advancing a leftist, anti-business legislative agenda than respecting the integrity of the scientific method. It’s obvious why. Their cataclysmic scare stories are unable to withstand scrutiny. By deleting e-mails and using tricks to hide the inconvenient decline in global temperatures, the climate alarmists prove to be not men of science, but ordinary frauds.
===============================================
Here is the full paper,
(Environmental Law and Management, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp. 3-12, 2010)
– John Abbot, Jennifer Marohasy
h/t to poptech
===============================================
My two cents? Exercise your freedom of vote: Throw the bums out in November.
Dr. Abbot, Dr. Marohasy;
It was with pleasure that I read your paper.
Going forward, have you received any feedback from the Met Office and/or CRU?
John
@899:
This is coupled with title 42, USC, chapter 41, subchapter 1, section 1981-1985, allowing full civil liability for anyone so doing that is not a judge, and acting within his legitimate judicial capacity.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21_20_I.html
§ 1981. Equal rights under the law
How Current is This?
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
“…we all need to vote and throw the bums out in November, but we also need to fix a broken system that encourages only bums to run for office. I think term limits might help, as it will eliminate some of the career politicians, but there are also the problems of…”
Yes, but in retrospect the system worked reasonably well for many decades. One can debate when the US government started to get too powerful. Those familiar with Southern history will point to the Civil War (States have the right to secede – the justification for denying this was contrived). Others will say the the real turning point came during the Great Depression (the first massive use of federal programs to intervene in individual lives), other will point to the “Great Society” programs.
It really doesn’t matter – the rot was gradual and each step along the path was justifiable (slavery was terrible, the depression was terrible, letting old folks die in poverty was terrible). However, each step led in the same direction: federal power always grew and never shrank. A “simple” reset would do nicely: reduce the Federal government back to the scope it had in 1776. Eliminate every federal program, law, bureaucracy or regulation that cannot be directly justified from the Constitution. No OSHA, no FEMA, no Homeland Security, no NASA, no Dept. of Education, no National Endowment for the Arts, no Social Security, no Medicare, no Fanny Mae, etc, etc, etc. Return these responsibilities to the States, where they belong, and you will have broken up the power that has concentrated in DC.
Unfortunately, this is not possible. Fully half of the population now receives more in benefits from the federal government than they pay in taxes. This means that the majority of the voters are now voting themselves largesse from the minority, and have no incentive to support any kind of reform.
The only solution that can work is a local one. Individual States that can still muster a majority for reform should withdraw from the federal union and reform a new America, based on the original Constitution and Amendments.
James Hansen said the massive number of FOIA requests were on one hand harassment and the other hand they interfered with his work.
It seems his work is picketing coal mines while on the clock. Now he has Muslum outreach meetings to conduct. This is just too much. I hear he had around 5 FOIA requests. Fulfilling the request would interfere with the busy busy blogging of his nice little helper Gavin Schmidt.
On exercising the right to vote. I agree, while we still can.
There has clearly been a problem with those personalities drawn to politics. But there are a number of concerned capable citizens and proven leaders of industry stepping forward this year. We owe it to ourselves to look at these newcomers, and upon finding good ones, to support them, personally and financially, according to our/your means. WE have to do this. We can’t merely wait to see what is offered. Too much is at stake now.
{Leif Svalgaard says:
July 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm
My two cents? Exercise your freedom of vote: Throw the bums out in November.
They will just be replaced by other bums,
REPLY: Saying then “don’t bother to vote”? – Anthony}
Anthony, I thought Dr. Leif was talking about actual bums, you know the ones we sit on. Sometimes that Scandanavian humour can be quite dry!
🙂
I believe that this is the Journal:
http://www.lawtext.com/lawtextweb/default.jsp?PageID=2
Note this in the submissions section:
The editors reserve the right to make alterations as to style, grammer, punctuation etc.; the accuracy of the contribution is the responsibility of the author.
Doesn’t look peer reviewed to me. It is a law journal.
Sorry about that link, the site doesn’t give decent direct links. Try this one:
http://www.lawtext.com/lawtextweb/default.jsp?PageID=2&PublicationID=6
[snip – use of banned words, specifically “c-f” ~mod]
Does that last one make me a teapartier? No not really, just an opponent of stupid government, and the Patriot Act.
Would it have been better if I had used an acronym? You could have just snipped the banned word instead of the whole post.
I am surprised that some people express cynicism about voting THIS TIME. The present administration has distinuished itself as the most statist in the history of the USA. Voting against rampant statism should be a labor of love and joy. The new people who are elected will act against statism. They might have other problems, but I doubt that they have the talent to distinguish themselves as this administration has.
JimB says: July 22, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“We may be beyond that.
It might be time for a benevolent dictator.”
Our country’s democracy has overcome challenges of a similar magnitude before, this time should be no different. Unfortunately, in a two party democratic system, sometimes things must get quite bad before the momentum swings, it is the nature of pendulum politics.
Rattus:
“The editors reserve the right to make alterations as to style, grammer, punctuation etc.;”
I didn’t believe it at first, but yes, that’s what it says. I’m glad they are making improvements.
Rattus writes:
“Doesn’t look peer reviewed to me. It is a law journal.”
It is peer-reviewed. I just verified it on their website, under “submissions.” If you take a look at who is on the editorial board, I think you will see that they would not waste their time on a non-serious journal. Serious law journals are peer-reviewed.
Throwing bums out and voting in anyone that has the correct label is the mistake I MADE! Don’t follow in my footsteps. I distrust Republicans big time (though Democrats hold that king of the hill title in my mind for now). I have decided that obstructionists are my cup of tea. Not compromisers. Not religious prayer filled believers in a cocktail of government and religion based morality law. And not politicians who clammer to get on this committee or that. I want someone who won’t vote for ANYTHING. Who seeks to shut committees down. Who wants to simply close departments. The only vote they know how to give is “NO”. I want someone who will work themselves, their staff, and whatever agency they are interested in, out of a job. I don’t want someone in there who will fix things. I want someone in there who will close things up, shutter the windows, turn out the lights, lock the door on their way out, and return to their homes for good.
I have had enough of either side trying to fix things.
Leif Svalgaard, Doug in Seattle, Anthony and others, :
“If we keep voting out the idiots, we might eventually end up with with ones that aren’t”
Even if every single one of them and their possible replacement would be a total idiot, there still is a good reason to oust them as quickly as possible. Because the less time each one of them spends in office, the less harm, damage and nuissance can they cause while there.
Different idiots persuing different stupid ideas under one term is preferable to letting one of them get at it forever, or just long enough to succeed …
We don’t want someone who gets things done.
We want someone who gets things undone.
Failing that I say give them a fair trial and a nice hanging.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 22, 2010 at 4:21 pm
This is why we now have a Tea Party. If, on the ballot you vote on in November, you don’t like the main menu choices, simply vote for a Tea Party or a nobody. Anyone with half a brain knows better than the majority of the bums currently in there.
The alternative is to stop voting and let them continue tearing our freedom to shreds.
Pamela Gray says:
July 22, 2010 at 7:54 pm
An real hope them Demos doon come your way an hold real still cuz yous will jes shoot em like them Marmots. LOL
JimB says:
July 22, 2010 at 6:22 pm
We may be beyond that.
It might be time for a benevolent dictator.
JimB, my friend, we have one. The GodKing, Himself. All His friends will remind you that He is all hopey, changey, and wonderful. The rest of us can hardly stand any more benevolence.
“They will just be replaced by other bums,”
Maybe, and maybe not. I’d like to think that I would do all of you proud (including Pamela): being honest, being open, being willing to call a thing what it is. On this last item, in one campaign piece, I call Global Warming a Political Hoax. And, I recognize that you can’t compromise with somebody who has no principles and no honor (e.g. many in Congress!).
I’m in a 4-way Republican race in Massachusetts’ 5th CD, working to replace Niki Tsongas. I’m not the front-runner, but I’m not far behind. And, in this (political) environment, I think the winner in the Primary will be the winner in November. Please have a look at http://www.Shapiro4Congress.org .
After the presidency of the next to the worst president, Carter (he was the worst until the current empty-suit fiasco), we got Reagan who wound-down, or at least postponed, a lot of government progressive expansionism. This is what we must shoot for. A 3rd party is a disaster, leading to the statists continuing in power. A 3-party system? You mean like Britain or France? God forbid.
Nice one Leif – you stirred some people up here!
(Spoken as someone who has never voted due to never having lived in a country where I am a citizen and thus had the right to vote since I turned 18 – it has become a matter of honour now, kind of like never joining a club that would have me as a member!)
Bob Shapiro says:
July 22, 2010 at 8:41 pm
If you get in, do us all a great big favor and vote yes on a fully earned impeachment.
By that time we should also have gotten a new Speaker.