From Bishop Hill, such a short story that it is difficult to excerpt, and given the importance, and the continuation reference to the story I broke on WUWT, I don’t think he’ll mind if I repost in entirety.
He writes:
Richard Tol reports from the IPCC WGII lead author meeting in San Francisco:
…the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false. FoI is national legislation. These laws can only be interpreted by the relevant courts. These laws can only be changed by the relevant parliaments. The civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation, and the IPCC has no say in this matter.
This of course is a continuation of this story.
George Monbiot was winning considerable plaudits on the Dark Matter thread for his strong stand on freedom of information. He is also, of course, a fan of the IPCC. It would be interesting to see what he makes of this.
Wasn’t it one of Phil Jones’ many brainstorms to hide behind the IPCC?
Well now they’re saying “Yes you can!”
Richard Tol reports from the IPCC WGII lead author meeting in San Francisco:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyone with any ethics left should resign from this group. Staying on as a member indicates the level of ethical standards they work with. The IPCC loses more credibility every day, an asymptotic approach to zero.
The IPCC are probably correct that the IPCC is not subject to FOIA of various countries, but the government funded agencies and people working for them and contributing to the IPCC are …
The IPCC statement simply confirms them as the cabal that they are.
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.
In essence, the IPCC has just admitted they cannot be trusted, and are definitely lying.
‘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.
FOI Laws apply to bodies of the government that made the law. The laws usually have a section listing the organisations that it applies to. In the US, it is to Federal agencies. So people who think the IPCC is subject to some FOI law should be able to say, whose law, and where the IPCC is listed.
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
Well NORSEX ICE EXTENT is not showing that same hide the decline 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.
That is NOT the IPCC’s fault nor the UN’s fault. THAT is the direct fault of western national governments for giving away hard, earned taxpayer monies with out proper accounting principles and the necessary transparency when spending taxpayer monies.
The general public doesn’t care one whit how western taxpayer money is spent – and no one is answerable in western governments to their taxpayers – so why would the UN or the IPCC care either?
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.
“How can any organisation declare itself to be above the law?”
Congress does it all the time, Stephen. >:-(
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)
crosspatch says:
December 14, 2011 at 12:56 pm
“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.”
This is true however you are wrong in that it only applies to the government. A more proper term would be government funded activity. While its true the UN is “above” FOIA the people working for them are still required to obey the laws of theirs host country and in many cases non-host countries.
IE in the US pretty much anything that gets federal funding is FOIA. Now can you FOIA someone from another country YES. The courts will likely support it after much fighting. However a state or even federal court can’t force another country to force its scientists to obey the FOIA.
Now on the other hand they can force any US scientist to obey it and release any info hosted on US servers both incoming and outgoing for things like e-mail.
Many other countries such as the UK have FOIA type laws as well.
While it would be hard pressed to force say scientists from china to turn over stuff on FOIA the majority of europe and of course the US should be easy. Other countries such as India maybe hard but after some time and pushing would likely release the info as well.
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.
….and no one has mentioned the great job they did with oil for food
@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.
Leave it to Nick Stokes to defend the UN/IPCC’s lack of transparency.
IPCC declares itself exempt from
FOIA lawsthe Scientific MethodThere. Fixed.
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?
“Stephen Brown says:
December 14, 2011 at 12:48 pm
How can any organisation declare itself to be above the law? No person or organisation can turn round and say, “Sorry, but that might apply to you but it does not apply to me.”
It is farcical the lengths to which the IPCC is now going to try and conceal the coagulation of festering corruption which it harbours within itself.”
I beg your pardon, but the US Congress does this all the time with legislation that applies to all but them or to them only.
Wait, if IPCC members are exempt from the law then “stealing” their emails is not a crime, right ?
IPCC: We are not above the law … we are the law.
@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.
In light of MF Global and AL Gore’s ‘Manifesto’ I will be keeping a close eye on the carbon markets.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-carbon-market-prices-idUSTRE7BD0RN20111214
Re-Hypothecate that!
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 .