UPDATE: (9:20 PST 10-17) the FOI request has been released, a copy of which is now linked below. This story will remain at the top of WUWT for a day or two. New stories will appear below this one.
CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
By Christopher Horner, CEI.org for WUWT
Although this is seedy and unlawful at any time, it also goes in the ‘bad timing’ file. Or it’s good timing, depending on one’s perspective.
Just as a brand new book further exposes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(which scam I dissected here, and in more disturbing detail here), and on the heels of the weekend surprise of a 2005 memo showing President Obama’s cooling/warming/population zealot of a ‘science czar’ John Holdren is the kind of guy Mitt Romney turns to to develop his ‘environmental’ policies, we’ve exposed the Obama administration and IPCC have cooperated to subvert U.S. transparency laws, run domestically out of Holdren’s White House office.
With this morning’s Freedom of Information Act request, the explaining they have to do must begin by providing the taxpayer certain records regarding — including but not limited to user name and password — for a backchannel ‘cloud’ established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.
The IPCC, you will recall, is Al Gore’s co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. And the host over the years of numerous scandals involving fudged and twisted data, cut-and-pastes from student theses, popular magazine articles and green-group press releases and of course the infamous “hide the decline” in temperatures. This is not just one more scandal, however.
Until the FOI request is posted at CEI.org (later today), here is a snapshot:
CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
As our FOIA request details, the UN informed participants that it was motivated by embarrassing releases of earlier discussions (“ClimateGate” key among them), and to circumvent the problem that national government transparency laws were posing the group.
CEI reminds OSTP that this practice was described as “creat[ing] non-governmental accounts for official business”, “using the nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications”, in a recent analogous situation involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff. CEI expects similar congressional and media outrage at this similar practice to evade the applicable record-keeping laws.
This effort has apparently been conducted with participation — thereby direct assistance and enabling — by the Obama White House which, shortly after taking office, seized for Holdren’s office the lead role on IPCC work from the Department of Commerce. The plan to secretly create a FOIA-free zone was then implemented.
This represents politically assisting the IPCC to enable UN, EU and U.S. bureaucrats and political appointees avoid official email channels for specific official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers, away from the prying eyes of increasingly skeptical taxpayers.
CEI also reminds OSTP of a similar, ongoing effort by the administration to claim that records on U.S. government computers belong to the UN IPCC, refusing to produce them under FOIA. This practice was affirmed in a report by the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General earlier this year.
As talks resume next month to forge a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, CEI looks forward to OSTP ceasing this unlawful activity, and providing prompt access to the requested records so the taxpayer can know what they, and the IPCC, are up to.
So this morning we requested all relevant records under FOIA, including all records sitting on that server, as they all were provided to U.S. government employees for official purposes. This was filed with OSTP run by controversial ‘science czar” and, we now know, former Mitt Romney ‘climate’ advisor John Holdren. The taxpayer deserves to know about this coordinated effort between OSTP and the IPCC to subvert U.S. law.
Possibly one Republican candidate will call in the next debate for ending US funding of the IPCC, now shown to be actively working (with the Obama White House) to subvert US law. Enough is enough is enough. Possibly Gov. Romney could defend Holdren and the IPCC.
In the meantime, we look for Rep. Henry Waxman’s outrage over Abramoff to prove it was also not political, and come down hard on the practice he so aggressively condemned and pursued, demanding preservation of records, threatening subpoenas, the whole works. With our request, that’s essentially what we’ve done, and we’d appreciate the company. You too, NPR.
Of course, it may not be of interest to the media because it only uncovers unlawful dealings to hide an effort impacting our entire economy, the premise for that “fundamental transformation” of America, with the sleazy lobbying operation being the UN. We’ll wait on OSTP’s response and hope for the best from the Hill and Republican candidates.
===============================================================
UPDATE: The FOI request document: OSTP_IPCC_Elec_Comm_FOIA1 (PDF 112k)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/
“Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public…”
OK S. says:
October 17, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“Private communications with dis-interested individuals, businesses, etc., while not on government time or not over government owned communications systems are not subject to FOI. As best as I recall what I signed.”
Additionally, being on/in the property of your (specific) government employer counts for FOI.
Nick Stokes says:
“I don’t think they were equivalent.”
Oookay, why did you bring the RNC one up then? Try to stay on topic, dude. When you introduce irrelevencies, it makes you look like you’re afraid to discuss the actual topic.
“The other is the IPCC using IPCC accounts for IPCC business.”
Whoops, you left out “secretly”.
Here’s the deal: it has already been ruled that IPCC correspondence is subject to FOI. Even if you don’t believe it, the IPCC does, because that is the REASON for their actions, if what is being reported above turns out to be correct. There is no point in pretending that IPCC correspondence is not also gov’t correspondence subject to FOI; that ship has sailed.
Additionally, the IPCC has stated that one of their goals is to be transparent, but what this shows is that they really intend to be opaque. Is that not worth observing?
If the IPCC is saying one thing publicly, and doing something else in secrecy, are they a trustworthy organization?
Furthermore, for some reason the IPCC has apparently identified a NEED to be opaque, since it took this action. Apparently, science done in the public’s eye rots, or something. Is that not worth observing?
RDCII says:
October 17, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Very well said. Nothing satisfies like a well explicated argument.
John Whitman says:
October 17, 2011 at 9:14 am
“If this comment by Brune is confirmed it implies that the IPCC had an intention to avoid info exposure by FOIA. The intent to avoid, if confirmed, is another very damning piece against the IPCC’s integrity and trustworthiness.”
It just might qualify as conspiracy to violate the law. The prosecutors must decide. However, once again the Warmista prove that their arrogance knows no bounds, not even the law.
Nice post, John. You are one keen observer who has follow through.
RDCII
Whoops, you left out “secretly”.
What evidence is there that it is secret? Most organisations like the IPCC have email systems and expect people on their business to use them. I very much doubt that this one is secret.
It’ll probably be a while before the above happens. [/sarc]
Theo Goodwin says:October 17, 2011 at 4:09 pm
“Additionally, being on/in the property of your (specific) government employer counts for FOI.”
I wish you’d quote some real facts here. There are very strange notions of FOI being asserted.
In fact, all FOI that I’m aware of simply says that documents and data held by government bodies must be made available by those bodies (with exemptions) to the public, on request. It doesn’t prescribe what documents they ought to hold. Or who should do what on anyone’s time. In fact FOI usually says very little about individuals at all. It’s a responsibilty on government bodies.
I think Jay Currie is very polite. In my view this is the most poorly expressed “gotcha” I have ever read, and that’s including some of Bastardi’s well-meaning but indecipherable gibberish. Chris Horner is a lousy writer, full stop. He’s unable to stop himself spurting silly snippy attacks on climate alarmists (there’s no value to mentioning Gore in this piece). And who on earth is the FOIA application being made to? Here are the key graphs:
CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
As our FOIA request details, the UN informed participants that it was motivated by embarrassing releases of earlier discussions (“ClimateGate” key among them), and to circumvent the problem that national government transparency laws were posing the group.
Can anyone tell? Sorry, there might be a story here but Horner has stomped all over it with his size eleventy clown shoes.
stephan says: October 17, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Is real climate finished can’t access any more
two hours later and two more attempts (John Whitman and me) and still no link.
WUWT???
Nick,
Actually, you’re right. They could be publicly and openly trying to break the law. Most organizations try to use subterfuge when they are trying to use subterfuge, but honestly, the IPCC doesn’t seem to think it can really be caught doing anything wrong. Maybe the org really is doing something as stupid as you’re suggesting they’re doing.
However, I would think that if this plan were publicly accessible/available, that Horner would simply provide a link to that info…which would be much more damaging than waiting for an FOI response.
Why do you think it’s public knowledge? Can you provide a link? That would be a very helpful positive contribution of yours towards this group.
Anyone can say anything in an FOIA request. Why is this news? If true it is, but there no proof of anything here.
Brad says:
“Anyone can say anything
in an FOIA requestwhen they claim CAGW. Why is this news? If true it is, but there no proof of anything here.”“RDCII says: October 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm
“Actually, you’re right. They could be publicly and openly trying to break the law.
Why do you think it’s public knowledge? Can you provide a link?”
As I said, when you look behind the ranting, all that’s alleged here is that the IPCC has an email system and they would like people on IPCC business to use it. That’s perfectly normal, and doesn’t break any law. I’d expect CEI has an email system too. It probably has passwords. It’s not publicised – I can’t provide a link – but that doesn’t mean it is secret.
Nick Stokes says:
October 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Theo Goodwin says:October 17, 2011 at 4:09 pm
“Additionally, being on/in the property of your (specific) government employer counts for FOI.”
“I wish you’d quote some real facts here. There are very strange notions of FOI being asserted.”
These laws were created to be applied in the broadest possible fashion. All communications belonging to a company or government office are property of that company or office. That is where the “on/in” company/government property comes from. To take an illustrative scenario, let’s say that you work for government agency X and you drive an automobile supplied by X. If you engage in communications from that car on your own time with your own equipment the government owns your communication. All communications owned by a company or government agency are subject to FOI.
Nick Stokes says:
“I can’t provide a link – but that doesn’t mean it is secret.”
Well, no, it’s not a secret now.
The public owns the IPCC. It is funded by governments. It purports to be the global authority and its findings are referred to as the Climate Bible. The IPCC is therefore ultimately accountable to the public and that means the global public. This means everyone on the planet has a stake in this project. This is not about the U.S. or Europe or an individual country. It’s about the planet.
Any email system that the IPCC uses must be opened up for intense scrutiny. Every message by every participant should be made available for inspection. These are public servants supposedly working on mission to save the planet for the greater good. What are they saying to each other? We certainly have a right to know. We fund their work. If some decline to participate because they insist on privacy, then so be it. Good riddance.
Who cares if Horner’s prose wasn’t all that great? His thesis is and remains legitimate.
It is time for the public to OCCUPY the IPCC.
Theo Goodwin says: October 17, 2011 at 6:07 pm
” If you engage in communications from that car on your own time with your own equipment the government owns your communication.”
Well, again I wish you’d quote some legislation, or at least some authority. I don’t believe any FOI law says anything like that.
14 Oct: CNRS, Paris: Emissions of atmospheric compounds : new scenarios for the IPCC
Emissions of the main greenhouse gases, reactive gaseous and particulate chemical compounds have been inventoried over the period 1850-2300 by an international collaboration involving scientists from the Laboratoire “Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales” (CNRS/UPMC/UVSQ)(1) and the Laboratoire d’Aérologie (CNRS/Université Paul Sabatier)(2). This quantification has enabled researchers to propose four new scenarios that will be used in future climatic simulations of the 5th IPCC report, due in 2013. This work, which is published in a special edition of the journal Climatic Change, was supported by CNRS, CNES and ADEME…
These scenarios will be integrated in climatic simulations of the future by most climate modelers. Such developments will be used to draft the next IPCC report, due to be published in 2013, and will also make it possible to explore the costs and benefits of the decisions taken today in terms of climate policies.
With support from CNRS, CNES and ADEME, the two French teams have designed a database known as ECCAD(4), which is available to the whole scientific community and can be consulted at http://ether.ipsl.jussieu.fr/eccad.
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1921.htm
Water droplet-gate!!
The Inspector General should seize all these computers….send in the FBI
It can hardly be secret since the documents cited by Horner are actually on the IPCC website. Click on the links in the FOIA request linked at the bottom of the post.
I don’t meant to sound stupid here, but can someone explain this to me in simple English?! There are way too many letters (representing forms, firms, and freaks) that you can’t keep them straight, sentences that are entire paragraphs long, and is clear as mud to people that couldn’t afford college, like me! Seems to be something I should be interested in….
[REPLY: Leanne, yes, if you are new to this discussion, there are no stupid questions. You can browse throught this site and find quite a bit. Commenters can point you to more information. Welcome. REP]
This does not make sense. It almost sounds as if the IPCC believes it has something to hide. I am curious what subjects the hidden emails are related to.
This is odd. The Obama White House did appear to promise a open and transparent government. One would assume the open and transparent policy would include matters related to science. Perhaps climate science is the exception.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/documents/open-government-directive
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FROM: Peter R. Orszag, Director
SUBJECT: Open Government Directive
In the Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, issued on January 21, 2009, the President instructed the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue an Open Government Directive. Responding to that instruction, this memorandum is intended to direct executive departments and agencies to take specific actions to implement the principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration set forth in the President’s Memorandum. This Directive was informed by recommendations from the Federal Chief Technology Officer, who solicited public comment through the White House Open Government Initiative.
The three principles of transparency, participation, and collaboration form the cornerstone of an open government. Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the Government is doing. Participation allows members of the public to contribute ideas and expertise so that their government can make policies with the benefit of information that is widely dispersed in society. Collaboration improves the effectiveness of Government by encouraging partnerships and cooperation within the Federal Government, across levels of government, and between the Government and private institutions.
This Open Government Directive establishes deadlines for action. But because of the presumption of openness that the President has endorsed, agencies are encouraged to advance their open government initiatives well ahead of those deadlines. In addition to the steps delineated in this memorandum, Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this year issued new guidelines1 for agencies with regard to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). With those guidelines, the Attorney General reinforced the principle that openness is the Federal Government’s default position for FOIA issues.
Couldn’t this be called: “Horner finds “the Big Picture” on cloud feedback” – in WUWT fashion?