BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA.

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)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

185 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MJW
October 18, 2011 10:00 pm

LazyTeenager says: In effect if this argument is correct the IPCC is more exposed under FOI than is a US government agency, especially to the extent that it uses seconded US government employees.
There’s no question that communication between a government agency and an outside organization is more exposed under the FOIA than communication within or between agencies. One of the most commonly used exemptions, Exemption 5, applies exclusively to “Inter- or intra- agency memoranda protected by either the deliberative process privilege or the attorney work-product privileges.”
It isn’t “especially to the extent that it uses seconded US government employees”; it’s simply “to the extent it uses seconded US government employees.” We pay the salaries, we have access to the information.

Cecil Coupe
October 18, 2011 11:45 pm

Kim, where are you? We need a poetic break.
Drivin’ that train
High on methane
Choo Choo Pachurri you better
watch your speed
Trouble ahead
Trouble behind
and you know that notion
just crossed my mind
Apologies to J. Garcia and R. Hunter.

Brendan H
October 19, 2011 1:02 am

JeffD: “Pretty sure this is not a CIA operation.”
I was speaking in general terms of “government and government-funded organisations”, rather than in specifics. The security consideration was just an example.
“Using their own words against them is exactly what is needed.”
Which is part of the problem, as we saw with the Trenberth “travesty” comment.

Brendan H
October 19, 2011 1:10 am

Dickens Goes Metro: “Public servants cannot assume that they have the same right to privacy that is enjoyed in the private sector.”
Agreed. But that doesn’t mean they should have no right to privacy at all.
Sometimes a public servant will have to give advice, eg about the trustworthiness of other parties, that could be damaging if made public. At other times, policies will still be under development, or controversial policies may need to be discussed.
And on many topics, including in climate science, there will be areas of robust disagreement. In these circumstances, people need to be able to speak freely without having to second-guess how their words might be interpreted or used against them.
Where you draw the line between transparency and privacy in this and any other case becomes a matter of judgement depending on the case. But as a matter of principle, I don’t see open-slather as a viable option.

Brian H
October 19, 2011 2:01 am

The exemptions you mention are soft; they apply until a genuine policy issue is at stake, or a question of malfeasance, etc. Then they must yield and give way. And they certainly do not apply to the nitty-gritty of government-sponsored scientific research.

MJW
October 19, 2011 2:07 am

Brendan H: And on many topics, including in climate science, there will be areas of robust disagreement. In these circumstances, people need to be able to speak freely without having to second-guess how their words might be interpreted or used against them.
And in formulating policy within a government agency, those discussions are protected from the FOIA by the previously mentioned Exception 5. What generally aren’t protected are discussions between agencies and non-agencies. Federal agencies don’t have the freedom to hide their communications with non-governmental organizations just because their words might be misinterpreted or used against them.

tim in vermont
October 19, 2011 10:37 am
Luap Leiht
October 19, 2011 7:42 pm

Does anyone else find it ironic that they are storing their back-channel communications in the cloud when by their own admission they don’t fully understand the impact of clouds in their climate change models?

R. de Haan
October 21, 2011 12:49 am

I linked the article with Timothy Birdnow’s blog. http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/
He wrote his own article about the subject which was published at Canada Free Press
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41484

Charlie Z
October 21, 2011 9:16 am

Brendon H. said, “And on many topics, including in climate science, there will be areas of robust disagreement. In these circumstances, people need to be able to speak freely without having to second-guess how their words might be interpreted or used against them.”
In the case of climate science, hiding the fact that there is indeed “robust disagreement” is part of the problem. Given that the current state of affairs is one of protecting a proclamation of unity and consensus, hiding any hint of “robust disagreement” is important. But, if the truth of the matter, that there is not consensus and there is still robust disagreement, were generally known, accepted, and acknowledged, then there would be no need to hide the disagreement in the first place.
Point is that it is the IPCC that is declaring scientific consensus and it is the IPCC that is creating the need to hide robust disagreement. Consensus is a lie and the words that they need to protect from being “used against them” expose that lie.
regards

1 6 7 8
Verified by MonsterInsights