IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws

Time to do a IPCC FOIA request I think …

This should not be hard to understand. State law rules local law. Federal law rules state law. And the UN rules them all.

Not shocked as the IPCC have proved they are a bunch of incompetents.
It really is time for the IPCC to disband and let ignominy take its course!

Anyone, anyone?

Raymond Chandler wrote in `The Long Goodbye`: “There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself”! Surely this must now be the epitaph for the IPCC?

The following video seems to fit the IPCC:

;-))

If you read only this part of the quote, what is the meaning ? :
“Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false.”
Careful.

This position by the IPCC and the UN generally, has some frightening implications for other UN objectives and plans, such as the entire Agenda 21 program, and various international regulatory and treaty proposals. This is very dangerous, if it stands!

Freedom from Accountability Act

How about imposing sanctions on the UN until they cave. And give their people parking fines in NYC from now on.

Wasn’t it one of Phil Jones’ many brainstorms to hide behind the IPCC?
Well now they’re saying “Yes you can!”

If the UN can declare themselves exempt of any obligation to the legal requirements of their host country, seems only fair that the US declare the UN exempt from funding.

‘Jeff in Calgary says:
December 14, 2011 at 12:37 pm
What nation will give them money when there is no accountability. Time to send some letteres to my Federal Representatives.’
If any of you wonder why us Brits are getting deeply pissed off with the Euro-Union’s proposals to make us all one happy family without the need for democracy, you should take a look at this: a financial plan without any accountability, entirely beyond the law or even enquiry from the governments who themselves fund it. It’s things like this they’re expecting us to sign up for, besides all the other things we’ve already handed over to them. And those 17 poor sods already in the euro currency zone are lined up for it. Makes the IPCC look like amateurs. The world is heading this way at a breakneck pace. You are lucky to have the 2nd Amendment.
In German but fully and clearly subtitled. And very scary. Please watch.

Can someone check DMI’s unbelievable drop in sea ice during the last day
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Someone there must have been desperate to get attention LOL

While I like blogs, I do not like to have the same discussion twice. The main discussion is over at Bishop Hill.
Let me be clear: The IPCC cannot do this. It is counterproductive to try. It would be interesting to know who in the US government (etc) thought this was a bright idea, what they said about this in past IPCC plenaries, and what they intend to say in the future.

Now how the hell does that work? I guess the IPCC just legislated itself into non-compliance of funding, because most FOIA/FOI laws require compliance to receive public funds.

The active membership of the IPCC is doing the work of Mother Gaia. They’ve been appointed/annointed. The rest of the world’s population are just pee-ons adding to the CO2 level and as for skeptics/doubters: they are the worst of the worst. They deny the science and deliberately inhibit the progress of the annointed saviors of Gaia with time-consuming, pedantic FOIA requests. Fruitcakes! (sarc)

Nick Stokes. That is brilliant insight. Who are the people participating in the IPCC working for? Are their employers subject to FOIA? Are they participating on their own time and expense? Is this a science club, or a government sponsored organization?
Keep defending the indefensible. At least you are consistent.

@Nick
I do not know the FOI law in the USA. In the UK, information that flows from the UN to the UK gov’t is exempt, but info that flows from the UK gov’t to the UN is subject to FOI. That’s a sensible rule that respects sovereignty.
Access to Environmental Information legislation (Aarhus convention) goes a step further. All information held by the UK gov’t on environmental matters is, in principle, accessible to any UK citizen or resident. The US is no party to Aarhus.

Jeez, you can’t make stuff like this up.
The IPPC falls into the proverbial pit and now they’re digging like mad to get out. If the climate saga was condensed into a sci-fi novel and sent back in time to my Borders bookstore in 1990, I doubt I could have gotten to the last chapter. It’s just too unrealistic to be believable. Real adults just don’t behave like this, and even if they did, no way would the whole world fall for such an obviously ludicrous con game. Right?

@Nick Stokes:
And I forgot to mention that the use of Gmail accounts to hide thier collusion from FOIA doesn’t count as scientists acting on their own time and expenses. Although I am sure their government accounts see far less action than they did a few years ago.

Nick Stokes any organization or individual is subject to the laws of the country they work in expect when they have explicit exemptions given to them by that country , ‘THEY CANNOT AWARD THEMSELVES’ such as exemptions in the way the IPCC is trying to do.
If AGW was as urgent , as important and as settled as claimed, far from seeking to hide information and obstruct peopling seeking to gain data , you expect them to be ramming the information under peoples noses .

Can we get the minutes of the meeting where it was decided the their publicy funded information is secret, so that we can understand their position.

crosspatch says:
Well, the IPCC, strictly speaking, is not a government so they would be exempt from FOIA requirements. I believe FOIA only covers government, doesn’t it? I mean, I can’t just go to Coca-Cola and ask for the secret formula with an FOIA request. I can’t even ask for their salary database.
IPCC isn’t a government organization. The UN is not a government, it is a diplomatic body. The UN has no force of law except that granted it by the sovereign member states (in other words, treaties ratified). The UN has no more authority than Occupy Wall Street has.
Strictly speaking the US FOIA applies to the executive branch which appoints the ambassadors who made the resolution to form the IPCC, therefore IMO subject to US FOIA. Obviously, it’s not something that is absolutely black and white, therefore at the very least the IPCC shouldn’t be making a “ruling”, but rather a higher authority should decide. I don’t see any reason why an ambassador wouldn’t have to comply with a FOI request unless the national security exemption applied.

JJ says:
December 14, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Wow.
IPCC members declare themselves above the law.
We should anticipate that those who consider themselves above the law, will also consider themselves above morality. We should expect that they will lie, cheat, and steal when it serves their purpose to do so.
Zero credibility should be assigned to anything produced by IPCC members.
You got to it first JJ… I’ll just say ditto.

The only reason to want to be above or outside the law is because you intend to break it.

The IPCC is a proven pseudoscience organization.Subject to many political and environmental pressures.
They have been exposed by exposing their numerous rule breaking (their own) .And allows many un-vetted papers and lesser,be published in the report.
Now that they are planning to be as irrational as their reports in transparency.It is time to disband the biased organization.

Make that FOIA.

Begs the question,what have they got to hide????

Who knew. People working for the UN and the Univ.s of VA and PA are exempt from FOI requests. And the Dep’t of Justice wants to pass a rule, that this administration gets to lie about FOI requests. Wonder what they are all hiding?

Obviously, it’s not something that is absolutely black and white, therefore at the very least the IPCC shouldn’t be making a “ruling”, but rather a higher authority should decide. I don’t see any reason why an ambassador wouldn’t have to comply with a FOI request unless the national security exemption applied.

Now what you COULD do, is that if any project or study used by IPCC got US government funding, you can go to the funding agency and get information WRT that study. So, for example, if a study by Mann was in AR4 that included data collected with the help of a government research grant of grant from a public university, you should be able to go to the funding agency at the federal or state level and get the information you want but that would probably only apply to the portion of the study that is derived from public money. I don’t believe you would be able to use one small part of a larger study being government funded to get access to the entire thing.
Imagine for a moment the discredited Dr. Michael Mann and the discredited Dr. Phil Jones were to publish a paper tomorrow that said the world was going to fly apart at 7:32 pm next Thursday and through their research they had discovered that it was all due to people doing “jumping jacks”. So he immediately takes this to the IPJJ who gathers a bunch of other data that might support the conclusion that “jumping jacks” will make the world fly apart and sends that report to the UNFCJJ. UNFCJJ recommends that a tax be placed on jumping jacks in order that people won’t do so many of them. The proceeds from this tax and additional payments from countries that do the most jumping jacks will then be distributed to poor countries and to those who are researching jumping jack alternatives such as the “sitting jack”.
Now keep in mind, all that would be required is for countries that perform the most jumping jacks to simply ban them or limit them. There really is no need for a bunch of money to be involved. But the money is the entire point, it really isn’t about jumping jacks, heck it could be anything else, maybe claiming that fossil fuel could heat the planet up and melt the ice caps or something. That doesn’t matter. Just like in the Ecuador outtakes from “Crude” the research report is only “smoke and mirrors” in order to get the money allocated. The only thing that matters is that they can collect data that can be shown in a way that would convince people to fork over the money. The money is the real issue. If they can collect 1000 people outside the conference center in Durban, they figure they are golden.
Now lets say some small portion of their research is a time series of micro-vibrations collected by UC Berkeley which is a publicly funded school. You could probably request information about that study that recorded the micro-vibrations but it might be hard to say that since the discredited Dr. Mann and the discredited Dr. Jones used that survey then their entire research is by extension publicly funded. But it might work, who knows. Particularly when it becomes known that they inverted that data from the survey and used it backwards, one might be able to obtain the portions of their research where they used that publicly funded data but I am not convinced you could get the entire thing out of the discredited IPCC.
The point here is that for a mere 100 billion dollars a year, the IPCC is pretty sure the world won’t fly apart as long as that money gets from the international 1% to the international 99% and those who research sitting jacks, of course, because they need to skim off a little bit for their pals and send the rest to third world despotic governments, for the most part.
See? It isn’t really about CO2 or jumping jacks or climate change. It’s about cash.

Curiousgeorge says:
December 14, 2011 at 12:52 pm
This position by the IPCC and the UN generally, has some frightening implications for other UN objectives and plans, such as the entire Agenda 21 program, and various international regulatory and treaty proposals. This is very dangerous, if it stands!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it most certainly is given the UN’s “Commission on Global Governance” and their stated stance on National sovereignty.

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” ~ UN Commission on Global Governance
One of the primary thrusts of Our Global Neighbourhood was the formation of “regional blocs or unions to enhance political, economic and environmental security”. The report proposed that “Regional Neighbourhoods” be established modelled closely on the successful example of the European Union. Recent years have seen a large number of such regional unions emerging, or being strengthened, including the African Union, The Mediterranean Neighbourhood Partnership, the Gulf States Coalition, and the proposed North American Union. The report also recommended a gradual reduction in the sovereignty of independent states, arguing strongly in favour of international “courts of accountability”, binding global agreements and significantly enhancing the legal authority of the UN.
http://green-agenda.com/globalgovernance.html

The last thing we need is a bunch of would be world dictators meeting behind closed doors to decide our collective fates, not that they do not do this already.

@ RichieP says:
December 14, 2011 at 1:08 pm
‘Jeff in Calgary says:
December 14, 2011 at 12:37 pm
What nation will give them money when there is no accountability. Time to send some letteres to my Federal Representatives.’
If any of you wonder why us Brits are getting deeply pissed off with the Euro-Union’s proposals to make us all one happy family without the need for democracy, you should take a look at this: a financial plan without any accountability, entirely beyond the law or even enquiry from the governments who themselves fund it. It’s things like this they’re expecting us to sign up for, besides all the other things we’ve already handed over to them. And those 17 poor sods already in the euro currency zone are lined up for it. Makes the IPCC look like amateurs. The world is heading this way at a breakneck pace. You are lucky to have the 2nd Amendment.
We are, and we do take it seriously: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/firearm-sales-way-up-during-holiday-season/
Quote:
This surge in gun sales — the best holiday sales season in three years, according to the Firearms Dealers Association — got a shot in the arm on Black Friday.
“Black Friday sales were off the charts this year,” a TDS employee said.
FBI stats show the number of background checks done on Black Friday three years ago pales in comparison to the number done this year — a 32-percent jump.
“People are just coming in to protect themselves,” the employee said. “I think there’s just a lot of things going on in the world that are getting people thinking.”
More women are buying guns than ever before as criminals get more desperate.
Like break-ins while people are at home sleeping. It’s happened twice in a few weeks in a Rocklin neighborhood.
TDS Guns says at least three women from the area have come in to buy a gun because as one victim told CBS13: “I’m gonna be ready for the next time.”

So, essentially, in a stroke of self proclaimed ingenious plan, they made sure that most people, who tend to be rational, will view ’em as lying c*ck s*ckers.
And they’re beating themselves to a pulp wondering why they’re loosing the PR war.
It’s brilliant.

These “leftists” at the IIPC are like the “rightists” at The Fed (not part of the US government, by the way, but a private corporation masquerading as a federal agency when it wants and also maintaining its private status when it wants). It took an act of Congress to get even a small audit of The Fed.
FOI requests against the government fail all the time and FOI requests are supposed to be against the government not private individuals or groups. It is certainly an interesting legal question about how far one can stretch this when private individuals or groups get government funding.
If my university gets federal funding, does an FOI request to my university mean that my university has to give up my transcripts to anyone who files the request?
There has to be some limit on FOI requests to entities that receive federal funding. Where that limit is may be on a case by case basis.
But I see the IIPC’s point that it doesn’t have to abide by an FOI request until ordered by a court to do so.

Remember the saying, “If it looks looks a duck, walks like a duck , …”
How about, “If it looks like a cover-up, acts like a cover-up, and refuses to show proof, it must be a cover-up.

Steve McIntyre just posted Tallbloke was raided today in UK, all computers confiscated. It was from Jeff Id.
REPLY: I’ve got a post up already see main page of WUWT – Anthony

One ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them …

IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws
And in other news the US Senate passes a bill “SB 1867” declaring the USA a “Battlefield” and thus allowing those declared by the president to be “an enemy” to be detained indefinitely without trial.
Pentagon Attorney Johnson’s comments made Thursday, as reported by the AP:
“…U.S. citizens don’t have immunity when they’re at war with the United States. Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.”
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TARGETED_KILLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

S.B. 1867 Section 1032 states:
Paragraph (1) states: (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY– The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: Because section 1 references section 2 as part of its requirements, Section 4’s nullification of Section 1 also nullifies the definitions laid forth in Section 2.
S.B. 1867 Section 1031 (2):
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
LEGAL ANALYSIS: The bill does not say “any al Qaeda operative who has committed a belligerent act.” It does not define exactly what a “belligerent act” may be. It simply includes “any person who has committed a belligerent act.” The word including is the key, because by definition “including” means in addition to the al Qaeda suspects, Taliban, etc.
http://conpats.blogspot.com/2011/12/sb-ended-us-constitutionwhat-will.html

(Sorry the blog is a hystrical flamer)
Matching Bill in Congress:

TEXT OF HR 1540 PP (Public Print – PP)(current as of 12/9/2011)
Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED
PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority
of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force
pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed
Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as
defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this
section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for
those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
that are engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its coalition partners, including any person
who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposi-
tion of a person under the law of war as described in sub-
section (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial
until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Au-
thorization for Use of Military Force….
4) Transfer to the custody or control of the per-
son’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or
any other foreign entity….
http://www.dailypaul.com/192209/urgent-lets-melt-the-congressional-switchboard-on-monday-tuesday

any other foreign entity! Is that the United Nations? Interpol or what?
Since Janet Napolitano has declare everyone from US Congressman Ron Paul to people holding prayer meetings to every single veteran of the armed forces, FBI, Secret Service… as “Suspected Terrorists” this bill does not give me the warm fuzzies ESPECIALLY when we have CAGW fanatics saying “Denying CAGW should be declared a crime against humanity”
After seeing what was done to the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution, I do not trust what could be done to innocent people using this. With out a strict definition of “belligerent act” It could be taken to mean something as simple as an outspoken blogger who is picking nits about how the president is running the country.
Discussion of what “Belligerent Act” means including application to Climate Scientists. http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2011/01/24/creeping-caesarism/
Bill HR875, the Commerce Clause and your garden: http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/trojan-horse-law-the-food-safety-modernization-act-of-2009

typo: “is still online”.

Other than it’s appearance on some blog, where is the evidence that this story is true? I see this link as the origin http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2011/12/ipcc-coi-foi.html and apart from that, nada. Are there any links to IPCC documents, or any e-mails? Why are you all so agitated about “the conspiracy” on the evidence of what somebody writes on a blog?

Just to clarify, legally the IPCC [b]CAN’T[/b] declare themselves exempt from FOI laws. So either something is wrong with the reporting here or the IPCC is breaking a number of governments’ laws. I wonder which is more likely?

Jan says:
December 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I suspect the IPCC does not do ‘law’ in the ordinary sense of it. Their ‘law’ revolves around controlling all of nature, human and otherwise, without constraint. All for the good of “The Cause”, don’t you know?
Well, Jan, you are perhaps right and perhaps wrong. You have read a whole bunch of stuff based on some hearsay that Anthony read and then put on his website that about 200 people have responded to having decided it’s gospel truth.

Smokey says:
December 14, 2011 at 6:11 pm
John Billings,
So I take it you believe the UN/IPCC will provide information that is requested via an FOIA request? Is that what you believe?
Why do you think that Smokey? From where can you take that presumption? Is there anything in anything I have written that leads you to believe that?
I remind you only of what I have said, and about which you should spend a few moments thinking: Other than it’s appearance on some blog, where is the evidence that this story is true? I see this link as the origin http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2011/12/ipcc-coi-foi.html and apart from that, nada. Are there any links to IPCC documents, or any e-mails? Why are you all so agitated about “the conspiracy” on the evidence of what somebody writes on a blog?

I’m not so much demanding or even wanting to see the IPCC emails and communications. Although it might be a real hoot to read and discuss. But, there are people involved with the IPCC and other NGOs thriving off US dollars paid by US taxpayers. My first thought was from what slime did these scientists come? They take our money and spread it around as they they see fit then act insulted if we demand a receipt. Who is protecting the US citizen’s interests in these deals?
And what’s going on with climate science that needs to be kept secret from the citizens. All we ever ask is “How did you come up with that? Can you give us the details?” They act like it’s some sort of ‘Spy vs Spy’ thing when in reality, if it’s what the IPCC is claiming everybody’s hand should be face up on the table. There must be no enemy in situations such as this.

Oh, please John Billings. Much as I like the odd patronizing pat on the head to acknowledge my naive little thoughts, I actually do read beyond the 200 comments on this blog.
I am though, heartened to learn that, in some small way, you feel that I could be right. You don’t know what a boost to my ego that is!

Jan says:
December 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Oh, please John Billings. Much as I like the odd patronizing pat on the head to acknowledge my naive little thoughts, I actually do read beyond the 200 comments on this blog.
I am though, heartened to learn that, in some small way, you feel that I could be right. You don’t know what a boost to my ego that is!
Jan, that’s immensely cool. I’m glad you’re happy, although in no way did I intend to “pat you on the head” or somesuch. I merely pointed out that you and all the others making reference to “the cause” etc were ignoring the elephant in the room: that this story has ignited all hell and fury based on an unsourced blog. That’s all.

Now , all we gotsta do is provide U.S.Marshalls and County sheriffs of many persuasions with the thousands of videos and documents and testimonials and we will have these puppies in a box in no time.

John Billings says:
December 14, 2011 at 6:18 pm
….I see this link as the origin http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2011/12/ipcc-coi-foi.html and apart from that, nada. Are there any links to IPCC documents, or any e-mails? Why are you all so agitated about “the conspiracy” on the evidence of what somebody writes on a blog?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There was an e-mail from Jones I think (maybe Mann) that backs up this claim but I am not about to go hunting for it right now since it is after 1pm where I am. You can go look for it either at the above link or Anthony’s first Climategate 2 discussion. My computer is too old and that thread will probably crash it.

Gail, this may be what is requested, posted at Bishop Hill by Mike I think.
In email 3249, from Dec 2008, Phil Jones says
“According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. ”
Similarly in 2440 he says
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. ”
The latter is well worth reading. He advises AR5 co-chair Thomas Stocker to delete all emails. He also advises Stocker to stick to the IPCC rules and says that they all did so with AR4!

Jay says
The UN is in the USA.
Therefore they should be subject to US FOIA laws.
-Jay
————–
And the American embassy was in Iran so the Iranians had some fun with their version of FOAI.
I could go on on on with examples why your principle is a bad idea but luckily others actually running the place already know this.
If you don’t believe me make a nuisance of yourself by sending FOAI requests to the Russian embassy and see what happens. Hopefully they will be polite and patient with you and won’t accompany their annoyance with a Po pellet.

@David
It appears that the IPCC’s confidentiality guidance document covers itself and cannot be disclosed. The IPCC intends to publish the first- and second-order drafts that are sent for expert and government review, the comments on those drafts, and the responses to those comments.
There is a lot more material, including the selection and allocation of authors, the outline of the report, and the zeroth-order draft and comments, that the IPCC will try to keep off limits.

Proposal for voluntary compliance of FOI law by sceptics
I would like to float an idea. It is only an idea, as I have not thought out the full ramifications – just looking for comments.
We are constantly seeing government paid alarmists denying their obligation under FOI law to disclose relevant information. Given the limited budget of sceptics, there is only so action under the law can do. We have seen brave attempts to force compliance with the law by releasing those FOI emails being ruthlessly squashed by the police.
Sceptics need to find a way to highlight the illegal actions of government employees. We also need a way to stop people believing we are oil funded groups … or if some are, to show that that funding is very limited compared to the massive funding of the alarmists.
So, I have been considering whether it might be possible to set up a system for voluntary compliance to the FOI act for voluntary groups like us sceptics. In principle, this would give us the same obligation and opt-outs as government bodies, e.g. personal details and commercial contracts would be exempt. So, e.g. compliance would require publishing information on donations, but would not require publishing it in a way that would breach confidentiality.
However, my main concern is the practicality. Firslty, whilst the information commissioner may be seen as an “enforcer” they provide invaluable advice to organisations subject to FOI law. That advice would not be available to voluntary compliance groups.
Also the FOI rules are written for professional full-time groups and it may be practically impossible for voluntary groups to comply even where they want to. I believe in the UK there is a requirement to respond in 21 days. Given that many voluntary groups may not even meet within a 21 day period and don’t have the funds to train individuals on the complexity of the requirements, 21 days may be far too stringent. Also, the complexities of what can and can’t be released is also worrying. And lastly is the shere time and effort to respond to a request.
I principle, I think the idea is good. It would certainly highlight the lack of compliance by the alarmists, and whilst a few alarmist groups would try to find dirt … the very fact that we voluntarily gave them the dirt would highlight the failure of the alarmists to comply where they have a legal requirement. However, the practicality may be beyond our means. Perhaps a simply system, is possible?

Richard Tol says:
December 15, 2011 at 12:22 am
@David
“It appears that the IPCC’s confidentiality guidance document covers itself and cannot be disclosed. The IPCC intends to publish the first- and second-order drafts that are sent for expert and government review, the comments on those drafts, and the responses to those comments.
There is a lot more material, including the selection and allocation of authors, the outline of the report, and the zeroth-order draft and comments, that the IPCC will try to keep off limits.”
Thank you Richard, and you are quite helpfull. Your comment on what is not on “the list” is very cogent, but the operative word hear is it “appears’, and both you and Richard B have a very difficult time being percise, but apparently there is a percise list which we, the people of the world world who are or may be affected by every policy recommendation this unelected group of Blackbeards make, cannot see what this list consists of !! Yet some private tallbloke in Britain was certainly not allowed to make a list for the police on what to provide them when they stormed into his private home and took his personal property, despite the fact that he recieves zero Govt funds and makes zero recommendations to change how governments around the world operate. And some posters here think this is fine and a boring matter, nothing to see here, just move along.

Blade, nice lazy smack down, I doubt he responds. I also notice John Billings and others have not responded to my comments with Richard Toll showing why this “nothing to see here, move along” thought process is absurd.

The FOI act in the USA ought to be powerful enough to extract whatever information is available including the emails.
After all, it was used to release onto the internet all the CIA language training material on the grounds that it had all been funded by the tax payer.
There are some things that will always rightly be difficult to access but nothing to do with climate change produced for and by the IPCC or any of the contributors falls into that category.
It is especially necessary considering that these people purport to be scientists and it is a necessary part of the scientific process.
Incidentally, does any one else worry that the world is being held to ransom b some of the most technologically challenged scientists imaginable? Harry’s notes reveal the lack of computer nous, an apparent lack of some essential skils and the latest emails seem to suggest that some of them (e.g. Phil Jones) can not even use Excel…. what? Can’t use excel and we are to believe this guy is competent to handle data arrays? manipulate data and derive meaningful conclusions from that data?

Gail Combs says:
December 14, 2011 at 4:52 pm
IPCC declares itself exempt from FOIA laws
And in other news the US Senate passes a bill “SB 1867″ declaring the USA a “Battlefield” and thus allowing those declared by the president to be “an enemy” to be detained indefinitely without trial.

Being “detained indefinitely” is more appropriate and humane than most of the alternatives practiced before international law began to mandate “indefinite detention” in preference to those inhumane alternatives. The President and Commander-in-Chief has always had the Constitutional authority and the linternational egal obligation to suspend the writ of habeus corpus with respect to prisoners of war, whether those prisoners of war are lawful combatants or unlawful combatants. The period of detention is determined by the period of time required for the sovereign belligerents to cease the hostilities and restore peaceful diplomatic relations, exchange prisoners of war, and/or parole prisoners of war. It is illegal under international law to prosecute a belligerent prisoner of war for the commission of any alleged crimes during hostilities, except for a violation/s of the international law of armed conflict. Only after the cessation of hostilities and restoration of peaceful diplomatic relations may a belligerent prisoner of war be prosecuted for alleged violations under civil criminal law.