Tuesday
May072013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More on the Holland EIR decision
May 7, 2013 Climate: CRU FOI UK Human Rights Blog has examined the Information Tribunal's decision to allow the Russell panel to withhold its emails. The eyebrows of the author, David Hart QC, appear to have been raised:
It is a little odd that a public authority can commission an inquiry of this sort, pay for it, and use its results, in this case, broadly to clear its name, and then not be able to produce documents which, had the inquiry been internal, it would have been required to produce to the requester.
Reader Comments (15)
The behaviour of ecofascists and their shills astonishes most people when their attention is drawn to it. It's just that this stuff still seems like a trivial and arcane internet squabble to most people. So it's the getting of normal people's attention that's the challenge.
For their cover to be utterly blown, the loonies need to get caught either lying, or talking arrant bollocks and then denying it, about something really huge. The Independent / David Viner thing about children not knowing what snow is was a good example of this, but it has mostly been a subject for uncontrollable mirth so far.
Something like that, but involving old people dying of cold because they can't afford to heat their homes any more, is what's needed to turn mirth into rage.
"David Hart QC", I think
The Climategate ball started rolling because of sloppy, badly documented work. The original FOI requests were an attempt to unearth data that was already lost and the misbehaviour came about because UEA was trying to hide that. It’s ironic that the investigation has followed the same path of taking the data as a throw away commodity and retaining only their deliberations as the valuable article, then squirming out of replying to FOI requests to try and hide the underlying shambles.
It’s good to see a few concerned voices from outside sceptic haunts.
It's seems to me that CRU have deliberately engineered things to head off requests like Mr Hollands from the get go. This is nothing more than an extension of their already documented efforts to deliberately avoid FOI that we already have seen from CRU over the years.
Regards
Mailman
"When the leaks occurred, a lot of requests for further information were put in (105 in 2009 alone) and some of the criticism of UEA in ICCER’s report was about how the UEA responded to these requests"
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/05/07/who-holds-the-working-papers-of-the-climategate-inquiry/
The number of FOIAs is a constant false complaint. As I recall the UEA attempted to stop the 1st FOIA for data by stating that the request was too encompassing and had to be limited to 5 countries/(or whatever units). In response a collective effort was made by numerous parties and individual requests for 5 countries each were organized to gain the data-set that was desired from the original single FOIA. So the increased number of FOIAs was unnecessarily increased by UEAs own attempts of stop the original FOIA request.
Tiny:
Frankly I resent the idea that I'm the ghost of scepticism past, TC.
Many have been infuriated by the phrase "We're all Thatcherites now" in recent weeks so let me coin another: "We're all sceptics now." David Hart certainly is and I don't think by any means he's an isolated case. The term applies with equal force to the EU, and rightly so, on which one has to say the timing of Nigel Lawson is impeccable - though he could hardly have arranged for the death of his old friend and leader to be followed so closely by spectacular by- and council elections at which a new party committed to leaving the EU set the future agenda of our country's political debate. Such moments only arise a few times in any generation. Seize the day.
May 7, 2013 at 9:57 AM | Justice4Rinka
Something I came across today certainly engaged my rage ... although, initially it invoked my mirth, until I started writing and thinking about it.
There's a UN arm (finger or whatever) called "UN Water". Believe it or not, since 1993, March 22 has been officially designated as World Water Day. And 2013 has been designated as International Year of World Water Cooperation.
This year, miracle of miracles, a bunch of "experts" came up with a "definition" of "water security" which was, evidently, required in order to "meet the challenge" (of the scary stories, of course). So I've blogged about it. Here's the short version:
The Press Release announcing (inter alia) this miraculous feat, noted that they'd like the UN Security Council to put "water security" on the Agenda, and also noted that "Access to safe water and sanitation is now a fundamental human right" (my bold -hro)
Canada's former PM, Jean Chretien, is quoted as saying: "Nothing is more fundamental to life than water [...]".
All of which led me to conclude:
Long version with links, for those who might be interested:
Of word salads and firebrands on the UN waterfront
Oh, and there's a Gleick connection to this story, too!
If deliberate evasion and delaying of FOI (or EIR) requests occurs, then a lack of good faith can safely be assumed and dealt with accordingly.
"When the leaks occurred, a lot of requests for further information were put in (105 in 2009 alone) and some of the criticism of UEA in ICCER’s report was about how the UEA responded to these requests"
Do you know how many FOIs they received 103 between 2005 and December 2009. 4 in 2007, and 2 in 2008. In 2009 they received a total of 59 from the climateaudit blog, each containing 5 countries as requested, 15 others before climate gate and I believe 23 after climate gate a total of 103. Which I got from an foi request from UEA, so by saying "105 in 2009 alonE" gives the impression of a CRU under attack it is misleading. If you take out the 59 which, as you say they asked for themselves and the 23 after climate gate you could say that between January 2005 when the FOIA came into effect until November 2009 they had received a total of 22 FOI requests.
geronimo
One FoI request is too many when it distracts you from saving the world!
Hilary,
If there is going to be a focus on water I imagine the French are going to be in the hot seat not Global Warming. The strong arm tactics of the French companies Vivendi-Generale des eaux and Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux. They now control nearly 40% of the world market, each serving, and billing, more than 110m people, Vivendi in 100 countries, Lyonnaise in 130. They owe their profits to the deregulation of trade and the complicity of international institutions and national governments. The market is all the more lucrative because the water services in nearly 85% of the world's cities are run by public or state companies. The two French giants and their subsidiaries have been signing highly remunerative privatisation contracts on the water market for 15 years. The local loss of control over water charges goes hand in hand with price increases that deny the poor access not only to the water service but also to clear information about minimum health standards.
In past years I have heard reports of poor villagers who once had free access to water denied water because of the privatization of water.
Rebellion Against Water Monopoly
http://www.progress.org/water15.htm
Hilary Ostrov..
'Water security...' 'Access to safe water and sanitation...' 'basic human right..'
These issues will concentrate people's minds somewhat in the UK when there's no ELECTRICITY to power the pumps (winter 2013/14..?)...
Oh, my goodness, yes, Hilary; and to miss that warming has always been beneficial for the biome and cooling always harmful? Shocking ignorance and arrogance, in measure bountiful enough to be explanatory.
================
LOL @ Richard Drake. There are loads of sceptics out there but like Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense they don't all know it yet. There are many reasons to be sceptical and the more those issues are discussed in blogs that have audiences new to AGW shenanigans the better.
Further to May 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM | Richard Drake but slightly O/T,
Lord Lawson was today interviewed on SkyNews about his comments on the EU.
Not unsurprisingly, UKIP were mentioned. Lord Lawson was able to put in a comment about how disasterous the present energy policy is. He mentioned that it is largely led by the LibDems and that it was damaging the economy and hurting the consumer especially the poor. he mentioned that this was one of the pollicies that the Conservatives needed to look at.
Unfortunately, the interview did not ask him to expand on why the policy was damaging the economy etc, but nonetheless even fleeting comments like this begin to gradually sow doubt in the mind of the listener and will ultimately make them more responsive to more detailed argument.