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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
So, part of the group who wants a One World Government
supports some will be above the law?
There must be a name for such a system, wouldn’t you think?
Well, RichieP, that’s what ‘war’ was invented for (literally: to countermand or act against such action by another), in the case of such an arbitrary and oppressive ‘stronghold’ is built.
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/13/civil-servants-foi-ruling-private-messages?INTCMP=SRCH
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.
This is the spirit of Al ‘D in Natural Science’ Gore telling us that the queen of England believes he is a real wizard and for us to stand BACK. This is wizards’ work and we should not interfere. If all phone lines are busy, donations can be made directly to The City of London.
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.
Here is a link to a list of lead authors and others participating in AR5:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/ipcc-wg2-ar5-authors.pdf
One of the Contributing Lead Authors represents Stratus Consulting, which was named in Chevron’s RICO lawsuit.
Of the 309 people listed, 57 are listed as representing the USA. Universities overrepresented within the already overrepresented USA include University of Michigan (3), Stanford (3), Columbia (3) and of course UC Berkeley (2).
Other unusual participants include The Nature Conservancy with one Lead Author; Climate Central, Inc.; ExxonMobil; and the Global Climate Adaptation Partnership.
It’s not clear to me why 18% of the participants who are helping to write and/or revise a so-called global Climate Bible are from the USA.
Seems like a pretty dubious enterprise to me.
Garacka says: December 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
“Is the IPCC making some such claim here?”
No. There’s no IPCC “declaration” or claim demonstrated here at all. No one is quoted. No text. No facts. Doesn’t seem to matter.
crosspatch says:
“See? It isn’t really about CO2 or jumping jacks or climate change. It’s about cash.”
First: Bravo!
IMO, the IPCC shouldn’t be in a position to deny any UN representative (forming body i.e.: their BOSS) any data used by the investigative panel in determining the content of their report and since the US UN representative is appointed by the executive branch should be subject to FOIA, she (or he) isn’t (or shouldn’t be) in a position to deny acquiring any information that that position is entitled to unless it falls under an exemption such as national security. So, basically FOIA requests should go to the UN representative who in turn “should” aquire the information from the IPCC.
The other side of the coin is why would the IPCC not want to be transparent? The science is “settled” and “clear”. It doesn’t make any sense that anyone would even have to invoke some FOIA to get the data, unless, they have something to hide.
But, as you pointed out, it’s about $ not science. A con man has to keep secrets.
FOI is important. So is freedom of speech. Jeff ID just had his post on the raid on my home vanish.
I will setup my own wordress server at http://thetalkshop.info asap.
Stay free
rog
This is easily solved.
Just put a brick on the check.
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
‘Jim says:
December 14, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Well, RichieP, that’s what ‘war’ was invented for (literally: to countermand or act against such action by another), in the case of such an arbitrary and oppressive ‘stronghold’ is built.’
Couldn’t agree more. And it will probably start in Greece. I hope to God our side wins.
One ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them …
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?
The UN is in the USA.
Therefore they should be subject to US FOIA laws.
-Jay
They’ve said the laws of physics, science and everything else don’t matter … does it surprise anyone they have contempt for all laws?
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
(Sorry the blog is a hystrical flamer)
Matching Bill in Congress:
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
tAV/noconsensus/Jeff ID’s blog are still online, and accessible, and displaying new comments as of 1 minute ago.
typo: “is still online”.
Holy crap, you guys are getting pretty worked up about a paragraph of vague 2nd hand reporting.
3 things: The paragraph says “Member states have ruled” – This implies that each country involved in the IPCC with FOI laws has ruled that FOI does not apply. It does not mean that the IPCC has made any decision, it has come from their respective governments. So therefore the headline is wrong, and misleading.
Two, There aren’t any other sources about this yet. At least wait on some confirmation before getting your panties in a bunch.
Three, I seem to recall a climategate 2 email (which was reported here at the time but seemingly disappeared down the memory hole) from the CSIRO in Australia that their usual response to FOI was to send them ALL their data. This was claimed as snowballing because it stumped FOI requesters, which is pretty funny because YOU HAVE ALL THEIR DATA (at least from the CSIRO, and affiliates).
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 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?
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?