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.
Well, . . it is clear that the IPCC is admitting that they do not do real science and their data cannot be seen or might just simply not exist. They’ve been making stuff up for years, now they are waving at us the fact that their science will not stand up to scrutiny, any scrutiny.
Lysenko directed Soviet science for years and made claims in biology that could not and would not be supported. When asked how he got the results he was touting, he said he told his scientists what he wanted and told them not to come back with out the appropriate results.
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.
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?
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?
geoff says:
December 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm
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.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Let us look at the lead…
” 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.”
So as you see geoff, the point is they (the IPCC civil servants from respective member states) have no authority to “usurp FoI legislation” as each memeber states FOI laws can only be changed via whatever respective method that country has, but in no case do the civil servant working within the IPCC have this authority. It therfore follows that most of the comments in regard to the arrogancy of the IPCC (already guilty of many lies and unscientific speculation) are spot on.
Also geoff, do you have any reason to think this, “the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material,” is false?
WUWT? It sounds self contradictory. It specifically states that “it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material.” Then goes on to state that “civil servants that speak on behalf of their countries have no right to usurp FoI legislation,”
Orwellian in the extreme.
Nick Stokes says:
December 14, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Nick is right. The IPCC is irrelevant. They hold no power. They have no influence (unless you want them to). They can’t tell anyone to do anything. And so FOIA is irrelevant.
In short – the IPCC will not affect anyone – only our politicians can affect our laws, our taxation, and our rights.
Please remember this in November 2012…
(By the way, didn’t the US Congress pull their funding last February? I hope they did…).
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.
chuck nolan says:
December 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm
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.
Chuck, you say that “I’m not so much demanding or even wanting to see the IPCC emails and communications”, but then you go on to say “My first thought was from what slime did these scientists come?” Don’t you think it might be helpful to be able to read what they wrote or see what they actually did before deciding that they came from slime? Or is it really true that irrespective of their words, thoughts or actions they came from slime?
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!
Hugh Pepper & R. Gates are exercising their rights under the freedom From Info Act about now.
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.
With jurisdictions that do have FOI rquests they have been thwarted anyway. I guess it has to be done the new-fashioned way – insiderleaks. Why would IPCC not want outsiders to know what they are up to. Sounds a bit suspicious (sarc)
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.
geoff says:
December 14, 2011 at 5:59 pm
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not so sure about that.
Does diplomatic immunity apply????
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.
John Billings says:
December 14, 2011 at 6:54 pm
“…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.;;”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Richard Tol based his original comment on this statement, which both he and Richard Betts agree to be accurate “As to FoI, the “confidetiality guidance” has a list of things that will be made public and says that any and all other material will remain confidential. The TSU indicated that this was done on behalf of the “governments”
Is the “confidentiality guidance” (whatever this is) “list of things” available for the public, so that we may judge for ourselves if all the other material which will remain confidential is reasonable and acceptable? What is the TSU and what did they mean by this being done on behalf of “goverments”? This indicates that someone representing disparate goverments decided, in communication with the IPCC, what was to be available to FOI laws, and what was not.
This is neither appropriate of legal. Both Richards are participants in the process, and I have no reason to doubt either of them, do you? Do you know the answers to the reasonable questions I have asked? Do you not think, in light of the many problems revealed with the IPCC processs in recent years, that it is reasonable to demand greater transparency in the process?
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!
John Billings says:
December 14, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Jan says:
December 14, 2011 at 6:48 pm
“… 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…”
John, both Richards are educated participants in the process and I have no reason to doubt their integrity, do you? I did this post on Bishop Hill and would like to hear your answers to my questions as well.
“RT and RB I think we need more infromation on this statement which you both accept…” As to FoI, the “confidetiality guidance” has a list of things that will be made public and says that any and all other material will remain confidential. The TSU indicated that this was done on behalf of the “governments”
Is the “confidentiality guidance” (whatever this is) “list of things” available for the public so that we may judge for ourselves if it is reasonable? What is the TSU and what did they mean by this being done on behalf of “goverments”? This indicates that someone representing disparate goverments decided, in communication with the IPCC, what was to be available to FOI laws, and what was not. This needs to be thourghly vetted. The IPCC clearly is a political body and the examples of distorted science (if you can call it science) are very numerous.
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.
KnR: “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”.
Exactly right – my sentiments exactly.
Nick Stokes, whilst you have not explicitly said so, your comments seem to suggest you support the UN trying to put themselves beyond the reach of FoI laws. As KnR says, surely the UN should be ready to give as much information as they can. Perhaps you can tell me why the secrecy is so necessary. Why should they have something to hide?
@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.
Ah! Now I know why Michael Mann aka Tricky Mickey considers himself free from FOI – he’s part of the IPCC. So easy.
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?
I’ve got a little job for the Norfolk Police, The Met. and that US department, Justice? obviously misnamed, over in NY at the UN.
TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR COMPUTERS TO SEE THE LIES!!!