Bishop Hill UN seeks to undermine FOI
Dec 6, 2011 Climate: IPCC FOI Email 1251 is from Phil Jones to Tim Osborn and Dave Palmer. They have been discussing how to deal with David Holland's request for the release of Briffa's IPCC-related correspondence, but the conversation moves onto a slightly different track:
Subject: FOI - the issue with IPCC that is going to the Commissioner
Tim, Dave,
I've spoken to Renate Christ who is head of the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva. I've given her a note about what we want, but we won't get a response by our August deadline.
What will happen though is that the whole issue of National FOIs/EIRs will be discussed at the next full IPCC plenary meeting in Bali in October. This is not a meeting that many scientists will go to. IPCC have got lawyers involved from their sponsoring UN organizations (UNEP and WMO). They have been alerted up to the issue by us and by others (mainly from US organizations like NOAA, DoE). They will come to a ruling then.
I know this doesn't help us for this request, but hopefully future IPCC-related FOIs/EIRs will be easier to deal with.
It seems as though they are taking the issue seriously. I did tell them that the various FOI acts probably differ slightly, but they seem to be aware of that.
Cheers
Phil
Reader Comments (14)
Offence: Statutory Conspiracy. Criminal Law Act 1977
Statutory conspiracy is defined by section 1 of the criminal law act 1977
Under section 1(1) if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their
intentions, either -
(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or
(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible
I'd love to see Phil's note to Renate.
No surprise Phil hates the FOI and always has , guess its just the epic scale of arrogance he has which means he feels the law should no apply to him either that of he know his claims are based on BS and really does not want people to get their hands on his data .
"I've spoken to Renate Christ who is head of the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva. I've given her a note about what we want..."
Of course, Dr. Phil might be asking IPCC to become more responsive to FOI/EIR requests. Taking any bets?
The EIR are intended to give the general public access to information relating to the environment from the state of the air, water, soil, etc to health and safety to environmental policies created by public organisations. As state-funded institutions, UEA and CRU should be eager to share information with that general public, and be advocating for greater transparency...right?.
Actually this could back-fire on scientists who seek unreasonable exemptions from FOI laws. I don't know if early draughts of papers and preliminary reports for funding agencies are covered by FOI but anyone who has ever written anything for publication (unless they are an unusually accomplished writer) would probably not want people to see draught versions of documents which might be poorly organised and ill thought-out with grammatical errors etc.
However, if British citizens start lobbying the UN and other organisations to have British laws changed to prevent rigorous scrutiny of arguments that are used to justify crippling taxes and damaging economic policies then the end result might actually be to provoke support for new laws enforcing greater transparency in scientific research that has far reaching social and economic implications.
"I've spoken to Renate Christ who is head of the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva. I've given her a note about what we want..."
So "we" being the UEA and it being created by a staff member at UEA, then this note should be subject to FOIA, right?
The issue= what we want = legs to expedite stiff-arming David Holland
@Roy at 9:54 PM: "However, if British citizens start lobbying the UN and other organisations to have British laws changed to prevent rigorous scrutiny..."
Semi-anecdotally and from direct observation, the U.N., the World Bank, and the IMF all have some chartered exemptions from sovereign law in the countries where they operate, in a manner similar to diplomatic immunity.
But it still looks like fraud, because it is.
I think I would like to start a business selling very powerful flashlights that shine into very dark places. I will call the business FOIA. The catch line with "See what nobody else can see!"
Should make millions. Any body want to be an investor?
A few weeks earlier came 2440.txt (highlighted in the README.txt file)
"I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it."
Emails 0856 and 2274 include this from Phil:
Along with some discussion of what is and isn't a kosher confidentiality agreement as the UEA sees it.
Simplifying the situation: we will pay them not to show us what we paid for. Sounds typical of the "team".
This need to know approach could lead to a grass roots "need to pay" movement and we could refuse to pay for things we will not be told. Let them canvass us directly for funding.
I've had enough of this "community;s" elitist attitude. Others probably feel the same.
Ah, I've fixed it for them in Eats shoots and leaves style:
"I've spoken to Renate. Christ, who is head of the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva?"
[Snip - raise the tone please]
Don Pablo, you might call your flashlight "Luz 5X" and claim that it reaches parts that other flashlights don,t.
LOL