Friday
May062011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Black scared of comments
May 6, 2011 BBC Climate: Parliament Richard Black has put up an article about the government response - with no comments permitted (it's a news article, see).
Tee hee.
Reader Comments (24)
Please understand that theyre now in "The Royal Honeymoon" phase at the Beeb. Just trying to keep the stones and bricks and eggs and rotten fruit and veggies at rest for as long as possible. Public discussion is the root of all evil. If only they could close the Pubs, I'm sure they would.
Well perhaps Jo Abbess has commanded that he has no comments. Don't Dick & Rog do whatever she says?
He may not want comments but I don't see any reason why that should stop us ...
For a start, Richard, I'm not all that happy with the word 'hack'. What makes you so sure it was a hack and not a leak? Given the broad scope but very specific nature of what was put into the public domain and the way it was done suggests that somebody actually went searching for the data. This bespeaks an "inside job"; hackers are usually less discriminating.The fact that "successive reviews" have found no fault with the "basic picture" is a tricky one, I admit. It could mean that there is no fault to be found. But, Richard, how will we ever know since nobody in any of the reviews looked at the "basic picture" to see whether there was anything doubtful about it?
Even you, in your somewhat blinkered approach to the science, must surely understand that if you hand-pick a chairman with a vested interest in the "basic picture" being beyond doubt and then allow
the culpritsI'm sorry 'the accused' to pick which bits of evidence they will let him see, then it is not really very likely that you will get a decision or an outcome which a) will command broad respect; b) can be considered trustworthy and; c) is likely to be anything other than a whitewash.I'm sure you understand the problem, Richard, even though it is patently obvious that you have no intention of admitting it.
Add in the participation of the chief adviser to the chief funding body for the whole shebang as selector of the chairman in the first place and now the man who decides what the report of another inquiry actually means and says and you will start to get a feel for why many of us consider your article to be just one more pointless piece of verbiage.
When I was a reporter I took nothing for granted and assumed that everyone in a position of authority was trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Obviously in the BBC's (pseudo-)Science Department such a basic and essential principle of sound journalsim does not apply.
There do seem to be all sorts of moves afoot to change to way 'things are done'.
Someone, somewhere appears to feel things are broke and need... er.. 'fixing'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/05/strong_personalities_with_narr.html?postId=108577227#comment_108577227
But going broadcast only is perhaps the best form of watertight oversight.
UEA must be the worst university in the whole world.
How low can they sink?
Firstly, Black says:
What reform have they done? Did they not recently deny a data request under the pretext that the university professors would not be able to write high-impact papers and derive commercial benefit from the data if they were to release it?
And then you get it! That, was the reform.
Then Black informs of the University's response:
So the whole exercise of the two enquiries, the reports, the assessments conducted with no interviewing of any climate sceptics, indeed the whole of Climategate, has been successfully used by the University to make its institutional case strongly with the government, that they had 'constraints' preventing them from sharing data.
The government response is even more fantastic:
In other words, they will 'start' by pretending to be 'open' and 'transparent' and quickly move on to giving excuses about 'commercial interests' (whores!), 'personal data' (whatever that is), and about the 'applicability of FoI to research' (chest-beatingly question the law itself).
In other words, the whole Climategate episode has been turned into an excuse for institution-wide victimhood and sciencexploitation drama by the UEA. "ooohh! Aaah! We are being asked data and uncomfortable questions" "How very unfair!, How painful!", "Some of us feel like committing suicide", "Its so personal". Please don't apply the law to us. The deniers are after us. Please make exceptions. We'll be 'transparent'.
Black is an intellectual coward!
The BBC are once again failing to investigate and report an issue which speaks directly to the corruption of a political process!
Paul
Where did the 'intellectual' assumption come from?
The comments before mine have really said it all. All I can do is express my amazement at the bare-faced efrontery of the enquirers, and of Richard Black, who has failed the smell and every other test for actual journalism. These people no doubt now think they have escaped their just desserts, but I am sure that this will catch up with these smug and crooked bar stewards before too long if there is any justice in the world.
I thought that the key question to be uppermost in the mind of an investigative journalist was "why is this lying bar steward lying to me", or did that only apply to political commentators?
Cumbrian Lad
I was never an "investigative" journalist but the first question I always asked myself was "why is he telling me this?". If it was unsolicited (ie a press release), the next stage was always to find some weakness that justified a phone call and "can you just elaborate on this for me, please?"
Works every time. Straight answer, go with it; five second pause followed by several ums and ahs, spike it.
"The ICO, meanwhile, is working with other government agencies and outside bodies such as the Royal Society to devise guidelines on how FoI laws should apply to research, with the aim of having them in place by September."
Shub - these are worth a read:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Research_and_reports/Roundtable_meeting_ICO_and_HE_Sector_on_FOI_29092010.ashx
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Freedom_of_Information/Research_and_reports/ico_he_sector_panel_meeting_note_20110127.ashx
This struck me in the first:
"The Muir Russell report suggests that there may be better strategies for universities to cope with sustained campaigns of the sort UEA experienced. The ICO would like to work with universities around this area."
This struck me in the second:
"Membership
It was felt that the membership of the group was about right; however there were suggestions for wider membership of subpanels. The Royal Society, researchers based outside the UK (e.g. the USA), and representatives from organisations such as the Campaign for FOI or from student bodies such as Vitae or the NUS were all suggested. As subpanels are set up, appropriate representatives can be invited to join."
The next meeting is due "in May" and I hope that there is a member from the Campaign for FOI on the membership as there are a number of statements in these minutes which give me cause for concern, not least the inaccurate characterisation of the UEA having been subject to a "sustained campaign".
Bish - as someone who has followed the issue, and now has a status as an authoritative voice, can I suggest you write to Steve Wood at the ICO who is chairing the process, to stress the need for FOI/EIR to function fully and properly in academia?
Apologies if already aware.
Predictable. Black's last two blogs have been full tilt propganda promotion.
In the current one, he is pumping some brainwashed new AGW poster child who is parroting all the fearmongering nonsense that he has been taught.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2011/05/generation_climate_game.html
In the previous one, he was promoting the use of polls as a valid source of information.
The use of the former illustrates just how low he can go. Pathetic parrot.
Cumbrian Lad
Definition of the present day "investigative journalist” - a person that works for a major MSM unit that can afford to pay for the latest DVD containing irrefutable details of a “celebs” banking/bonking capability.
Those that used to investigate are now declared “maverick”, because it is now the “establishment” that decides who is the latest “bread and circuses” item to be thrown to the wolves.
We do indeed live in interesting times!
(1) "Successive reviews into the University of East Anglia (UEA) climate e-mail hack cast no doubt on the basic picture of global warming, the government says"
Fact: No hack has yet been deonstrated.
Fact: No review has actually investigated the science.
Conclusion: the government displays its ignorance, incompetence, untruthfulness or some combination of such to publically issue this finding.
(2) "The government says it wants to clarify how Freedom of Information laws apply to
scientific research in future."
Conclusion: Given the conclusion of (1) this sounds like "We don't like being found out and in future this will not happen. We'll make sure of that"
(3) "But, they (Lord Ox. and Sir RM reviews) said, individual researchers had not tried to subvert the scientific process, and the fundamental picture of a planet warming under the impact of fossil-fuel burning was basically unchallenged"
Fact: They only looked at 'safe' cases and deliberately avoided embarassing examples.
Fact: They asked the 'defendents' if they had done 'bad' things. They got the answer.
'No we didn't' That satisfied the reviews!
Fact: They did not examine the science in either review and have clearly stated that they didn't.
Conclusion: Both reviews were planned and executed to be whitewashes.
Conclusion: They were instructed not to press for 'awkward' answers
Conclusion: They make a scientific claim for which they produced no evidence. They
lied.
(4) The government agrees, saying: "we find no evidence to question the scientific
basis of human influence on the climate".
Fact: The 'no evidence' has been found by not looking for any
Conclusion: The government does not wish to find any evidence that the planet may not, in fact, be in danger from mankind's activities.
Conclusion: Scaring children and subverting the educational process is, in effect,
official government policy.
(5) The ICO, meanwhile, is working with other government agencies and outside bodies
such as the Royal Society to devise guidelines on how FoI laws should apply to
research, with the aim of having them in place by September
Fact and Conclusion: The ICO has been bullied into recognising (2)
(6) UEA, which has already reformed processes for handling FoI requests, welcomed the
government response, in particular "the finding that there is no evidence to question
the validity of research conducted by the Climatic Research Unit
Fact: 'Reformed' here simply means that they've discovered new ways of hiding their
activities.
Conclusion: They are hiding things that they don't want us to know about.
Conclusion: They have the full support of government in so dong.
(7) (from UEA) "We welcome the government's acknowledgement of the constraints related to data-sharing and its work with research councils to strengthen the transparency of scientific research, to which the university is wholly committed and on which it has acted, putting a number of measures in place."
Conclusion: see (2) and (5) above.
Mr Black and the BBC, you truly have damaged the, once, jealously-guarded reputation of Auntie for fair-play and impartial journalism by printing this political propaganda.
You make me ashamed to be British.
Darn it!.
Sorry about the formatting.
Does anyone know Richard Black's credentials as environment correspondent for the BBC News website?
We know Harrabin and Shukman have no credentials.
The government response was written by Ant and DECC.
@ not banned yet.
If he wants to appease the Unis, the Information Commissioner can tinker with the procedures his office uses but that will not affect the law and I have every confidence that the Tribunal and higher Courts would enforce the law if the Commissioner didn't. The Commissioner can also urge Parliament to change the FOIA and EIR but so far the indications are that he would like it toughened in respect of section 77 and regulation 19 to ensure that the deliberate deletions as happened at UEA and (outrageously in my view) at Edinburgh University can be looked into within 6 months of when they are reported to him not when they were undertaken. The public reacted very negatively when Parliament tried to weaken the FOIA last time.
The real bitch the Universities have seems to be on the EIR. Remember that Defra, the Met Office, and all the Universities initially refused to use the EIR on any of my requests, and had their classification been correct and upheld by the Commissioner they may well have been able to sustain some of their refusals through the iniquitous section 36 and the ministerial veto, or even on confidentiality grounds.
As it is to get any real relief from from their irritation at demands relating to environmental matters the Unis need to get a UN Convention modified. I wish them luck! I would like a change in the Aarhus Convention to make it cover all information held by public authorities and plcs.
Nothing new
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Richard%20black
Its always extremely difficult, if not impossible, to comment on Richard Black's pieces. Either they provide no opportunity for comment - or else they shut down VERY quickly once they've got half a dozen or so responses.
Not that I'm suggesting for ONE MINUTE that there's any bias in his reporting or the BBC's approach to the subject in general....!
David Holland has a very good point about the six-month time bar. There are time limitations on most offences and breaches but very, very few are as short as six months. It should not be possible to evade the consequences of one's actions by ducking and diving and weaving for half a year.
One other aspect that we all know about but hasn't, in my opinion, been hammered at hard enough is the awful harrassment that Mann and Jones bleated pitifully that they were suffering as a result of all the FOI requests they were getting. Initially one had the impression it was several hundred. I was reminded of the letters in the first Harry Potter book, thousands of them coming down chimneys and through windows and under doors until they were forced to flee to remote islands in order to get any work done.
Turned out there were about a dozen. Is that right?
I haven't seen a proper case made that if they had answered the first request properly that would probably have been the end of the matter. The idea that "if we answer this, they'll all be at it" seems to suggest a healthy dose of paranoia to go with all the other shortcomings and it appears that they are now trying sell the government a false bill of goods using this harrassment as the excuse to get the FOI tightened up so that, in effect, it will hardly apply to them.
The arrogance and intellectual isolation of academia is truly breathtaking.
Not quite Mike,
Many if not most offences tried by Magistrates have a 6 month time limit from the offence to when it is reported to the Magistrates. For parking and speeding that's fair. For offences like giving false information to get car insurance the time limit is "from the date on which sufficient evidence came to the knowledge of the prosecutor to warrant proceedings." This form of words needs adding to the FOIA and EIR.
While they are at it they need to sort out the loophole that leaves the BBC and Channel 4 outside the EIR - which is not what what the Directive and Aarhus would lead you to think should be the case. They also need to give some teeth to the regulation 4 requirement to proactively and systematically disseminate environmental information. Has anybody seen at any public authority an environmental information publication scheme?
You're right, David. My apologies.
But the essence of virtually all offences is that the clock starts running from the date at which those responsible for dealing with it are made aware that an offence has taken place. In the case of motoring offences in general that is immediately because the commission of the offence or its immediate consequence has been observed (otherwise there is no evidence that it has even been committed).
The addition of the words you suggest should solve the problem as far as FoI is concerned.
I can see no good reason why any public body should be exempt from EIR, though I have no doubt that there are quite a few that would put forward a case!
Mike,
There is no good reason that the BBC and Channel 4 are not subject to the EIR - they are not obviously left out of the Convention or the Directive. They are unintentionally, I feel sure, benefiting from the poor drafting of EIR regulation 2(2)(b)(i) which can and has been interpreted as disqualifying them as a public authority for the purposes of the EIR. However that does not alter the fact that by law under the FOIA all environmental information is exempt from disclosure by public authorities. I am at a loss to understand why the Information Commissioner has not made this point strongly to the DCA.