Hacked climate e-mails and FOI
Freedom of information can be a troublesome matter for some academic institutions - and this is well illustrated by the surprising content of some e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and published on the internet a few days ago.
The CRU is a leading centre for the study of climate change and has played a key role in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's also a focus of criticism for a vociferous band of climate change sceptics, who have started hunting through the large quantity of hacked e-mails with enthusiasm.
Whatever these e-mails may or may not say about climate change is outside the scope of this blog. But they are certainly interesting from the FOI point of view.
I should note that it is not yet possible to confirm beyond doubt that the hacked e-mails are all authentic. However, I have discussed them with the university press office and the CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, who is the author of many of them. They both say that there are so many documents that they have not yet been able to check that they are all genuine. But it's certainly clear that some are real, and neither the university nor Professor Jones made any attempt to question the authenticity of any of them.
Several of the e-mails suggest that Professor Jones apparently had considerable unease at the requirements of the FOI Act (although I should point out that actually the material involved would be more likely to come under the Environmental Information Regulations, which lay down similar disclosure obligations).
According to one of the hacked e-mails, Professor Jones made the following remark with reference to two of his critics who want access to his data: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
According to another, he advised a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report.
And according to yet another, he wrote: "Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit."
But perhaps it is the following extracts from this one which best conveys Professor Jones's apparent feelings of coming under siege from information requests:
"When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA [Climate Audit] was all about... I don't know who else at UEA may be getting them... We're away of requests going to others in the UK.
"The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI - it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating !
"In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data - mainly paleo data. Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we've put up. Every time, so far, that hasn't led to anything being added - instead just statements saying read what is in the papers and what is on the web site! ... We've never sent programs, any codes and manuals.
"In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in 2 weeks time. These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next year we'll be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and amounts of grants, papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of FOI requests you get should be another."
When I put the allegation to Professor Jones that the hacked e-mails suggested he had supported deleting e-mails in breach of FOI, he said: "We haven't deleted any emails. I delete my own personal emails a year at a time regardless of subject as I have too many, but the university still has the emails."
Professor Jones also told me that he concurs with the view expressed by some other academics that freedom of information may be too intrusive into academic matters. He said: "My e-mails were personal. This is all about academic freedom. I'm just a humble scientist trying to do research."
The University of East Anglia denies that its FOI team reached an agreement with Professor Jones to "ignore" certain information requests. Its spokesperson told me:
"In some areas, there are persistent and motivated groups or individuals whose applications create a volume of work which is extremely demanding. Nonetheless, we try to respond to all such requests within our guidelines."
It adds that it consulted the Information Commissioner's Office on how to handle a large number of similar requests for climate data.
According to its latest published caseload [166KB PDF], the ICO is investigating one complaint against UEA over a request for "information about research, reviews, conclusions and reports into climate change studies".
A 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~15~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Academic institutions operate mostly in a different manner than a business or governmental disucssion. This is inquiry and question of results and finding. It should not be unusual for one academic to question the results or methods of another, this is the scientific investigation process. In the time of internet blogs and anti-this or that organizations it has become much more difficult to hold such discussions because those who have an intent of refuting things and not dicussing things will take anything out of context and try to make a case or say that some small statement refutes an entire body of work. Governments and the media disproportionately respond to the angry and small minded who obviously have a particular agenda and are not interested in a factual discussion. Arguments are good in pubs but not necessarily should be considered for policy development. Now, that said, the influence of the energy providers have no need for making any case about anything, they have the political power to get their way regardless of the science and take great joy in having the anti-groups make world-is-flat statements about climate change. Another distraction that will provide politicans with excuses for doing nothing and keeping the polluting companies in power. They will wait until a crisis occurs before anything will be done.....it is difficult to vote correctly when your hands are in the energy company pockets. The equation is that some people become very sick or die, but others do very well..considered a fair trade by those in power. Those opposed to climate change mitigation should take great comfort in knowing that governments have no history of taking care of the common people at the disadvantage of the wealthy and powerful, that is why history records revolutions.
Complain about this comment
It's an interesting case. It's been known for a long time that the CRU has been trying to frustrate any FOI requests. The whistleblower here has blown the gaff, and now it's clear they have been playing fast and loose with the Act. It's a criminal offence so I suspect they will clam up quickly.
The question is now what the CRU does, what UEA does? I suspect that UEA may well want to distance itself from the mess, and that could include hanging the CRU out to dry.
The next is what the FOI commissioner does. Here we have clear evidence of law breaking. Will they put any complaint on the pile and get to in in a few years, or will they expedite an investigation?
Nick
Complain about this comment
“Here we have clear evidence of law breaking.”
The hacking into the UEA’s ICT system certainly is law breaking; I hope the police catch and prosecute the perpetrator.
Complain about this comment
The emails and data released are now part of a very important discussion about the authenticity and credibility of the science from CRU. Well done Nigel Lawson for his article in 'The Times' highlighting the importance of this story. (One cant help feel the BBC is afraid of this story)
To hundreds of people posting in climate related threads(BBC +others) it is a total mystery why the BBC has refused to allow a meaningful discussion in that context.
It is not a story that will go away. These emails chronicle a full 13 years of scientific discussion at the very heart of the Global Warming story. It will become quite a historical work probably.For many of us it is obvious these hard working scientists got carried away as people like Al Gore mutated the whole global warming story into a big buisness carbon dioxide scare. The emails tell the story very clearly .. and as the IPCC demanded ever more dramatic models data was massaged manipulated or worse.
Politics and money took over and they discussed denying access to peer review journals for sceptics and other perverted strategies which somewhat degrades all the scientific work they did.
Yes the world may be a little warmer but what is average? There is much discussion of this, and again it is obvious 'normal' was what suited the data. It is fascinating reading the frustration amonsgt the team as the planet fails to continue to warm in the last 10 years
I think you should join or link this thread to one of the other climate discussions and you will see what people think. Yes the politicians were duped as the thought of more tax revenue just like research funding is too much to resist but times change ( like the climate )
Complain about this comment
The collusion that was found is certainly law breaking, I hope the police make sure and give a good example putting all this scientists and their cronies politicians where they deserve, at the jail.
Taking in account the amount of money that on the table using as the pretext dodgy IPCC reports and the whole global warming scam, this should be taken very seriously.
Don't forget to put Al Gore in the prison as well, he is the boss of this Mafia.
Complain about this comment
This will change nothing. Those posting above have a clear ideological bias and already believe in a conspiracy theory (or two or three).
Just as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will take any innocuous statement and read into it their own interpretation so it is with this affair. There'll be much heat, but little light generated.
Meanwhile we are effectively running a real-time, real-world experiment. The only criteria by which the climate change case can be judged is against the projections of the IPCC for later this century. Given there is no alternative non-carbon fuel source readily available to fuel our cars etc (and if there were any transition would take decades at least) the young at least should be able to form a judgement in a few decades time.
NB. We are in the midst of the strongest solar minimum since the Sporer and Maunder Minimums, yet it seems to be doing little compared to its historical predecessors; unless that is there is something counteracting it this time round. We should know when it ends in around 2014; let's hope there's no nasty surprises.
Complain about this comment
(Oh the joys of being a physicist turned lawyer, and the regrets that I never got round to an in-depth study of the FOI).
Let's think about this from the legal point of view. At this time we do not know the route this material took into the public arena. This may involve criminal actions under the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection Act and civil breach of copyright. [Note though that whatever Professor Jones may have said, these emails all appear to have been written by employees acting in the course of their employment, and so any copyright belongs to their employer(s), not the authors.]
But I am staggered by the reaction to the FOI/EIR requests shown here. Professor Jones' merits as a scientist can be debated elsewhere, but if the statement attributed to him above is correct and accurate, he is no lawyer. My superficial reading of the FOI and the EIR has it that there is no exemption from disclosure on the basis that you do not like or approve of the requester. These pieces of legislation are an irritant for the recipients, but basically bring into UK law the proposition that the public is entitled to see what the public pays for. [If you don't like that, blame the politicians responsible.] Equally, data protection is not just about "seeing your credit record" (which was already authorised under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, if I remember rightly). While Professor Jones can perhaps be forgiven for not understanding the law, his employer cannot have the same excuse. Furthermore, if you read around the story you will find that the requester(s) of the data, having been to the Information Commissioner's Office, have found that fairly ineffective. And, of course, there is no private civil remedy.
Quite how Professor Jones is able to persuade his compliance officer over so easily is something which puzzles me.
The leak has probably terminated the FOI/EIR process, which is a pity, as it would have been good for these issues to have a proper airing.
Complain about this comment
So, Will ClimateAudit now openly publish on the Web all its emails, both written and received since it started, just to quash any suspicion that they might have known about this hack in advance? And anything else they might be suspected of, at any time, by any persons.
In the interests of transparency of course.
That includes all personal mails sent/received under other addresses by those involved in CA, as well as those using a ClimateAudit email address.
Complain about this comment
The hacker must have had information to the effect later revealed in the emails, and Professor Jones was a probable target. No smoke without fire.
I am reminded of a website that recently stated that Al Gore should be critically questioned on his reasoning and his now acknowledged falsehoods by an open objective press. The website was biased and quoted the American bible -“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15 - biased or not they have made a good point.
Jones was hiding behind the statement "I'm just a humble scientist trying to do research." NO HE IS NOT. He is a dissembler of information and if he is doing this for the promotion of an agenda divorced from scientific fact, then he is not an eco-warrior but an eco-charlatan.
This issue reminds me of the Earth's early history where the vast majority of the people and "intelligentsia" believed the earth was flat, and put to death many who questionned it.
Today the media state that the "vast majority" of scientific thought is behind climate change caused by human intervention, without any quantifying data.
The British press and bbc keep mentioning that the USA is an unbeliever, again without any reasoning, and without any enquiry into the real positions of India and China.
Flat Earth Anyone?
Complain about this comment
If UEA was a paragon of virtue, then it might be easier to take some of their recent statements on merit.
However, when they deny access to data that would facilitate peer review of data then there is a need for deeper investigation. This has nothing to do with agenda's or conspiracies. If the science is good then it will withstand analysis. If the science does not withstand analysis then it needs to be revisited and proven sound or otherwise.
And while one story does not make for conclusive proof. this one makes for some very interesting questions that should be be posed to UEA staff.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
Complain about this comment
Martin
A pretty long account by one of the participants in the original CRU FoI request. Shows much of the background to this. It also (a minor point in the big scheme shows that this leak was probably less due to Copenhagen).
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/
Complain about this comment
jayfurneaux wrote: “Those posting above have a clear ideological bias”
In all other fields of science it is standard practice to publish data and methods so that those with a sceptical view can test claims being made and look for problems. This is how science advances.
In climate science it has become standard practice to hide data and methods and to accuse anyone who has an even slightly differing view point of underhand political or financial motives. This has led to the growth of conspiracy theories and sceptical websites. All scientists should be sceptical about everything – the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
If the CO2 led warming theory turns out to be true, people like Phil Jones and jayfurneaux will be remembered as the ones who held back science for decades by not publishing data and allowing the full scientific peer review process to take place.
Complain about this comment
I have received and posted in my "Omniclimate" blog the story of a FOI request to CRU that at one point became as simple as getting a "list of the meteorological stations used in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average".
And yet, it took a long and hard fight to get such a list. How could that be considered an unreasonable request, worthy of being denied twice?
Furthermore, the UEA allegation that "there are persistent and motivated groups or individuals whose applications create a volume of work which is extremely demanding" is a grave one and it should be either substantiated, or withdrawn.
Complain about this comment
jayfurneaux, you are amusingly behind the times! In your zest to try to smother this with blankets of 'I hope the police...' and your obvious discomfort, you have failed to see the latest news... There's speculation that it was by put up on an FTP directory which was on the same CPU as the external webserver by a senior member of the CRU staff - whose name you can actually find if you look hard enough. It was therefore 'there' to be read, and there is no conspiracy or 'theft'. However, please keep posting your comments as I find them (as a warming sceptic myself) very amusing.
Complain about this comment
The MP Expenses Scandal was revealed by a Whistleblower, this has been revealed by a Hacker, or a Denier or a Skeptic, interesting phraseology. It'll be amusing to find that the data was placed on an external server by the CRU themselves
Complain about this comment
jayfurneaux wrote:
This will change nothing. Those posting above have a clear ideological bias and already believe in a conspiracy theory (or two or three).
I must object to being called a conspiricist! just because I feel the science described in the emails is weak however hard working these people are. I think of it like a drawn out version of the cold fusion debacle sounds good, awfully exciting, media overheated, but ultimately will cool
Personal view is no 'conspiracy' , just human frailty and poor science and a very strong political and MSM drive causing a rollercoaster effect. I do believe people now rely on what they hear in the media to understand science which is a huge problem
Complain about this comment
SmokingDeepThroat on jayfurneaux - spot on! jay's always amusingly far off and I'm a fan of the comment spew also. I have to be careful in agreeing with you otherwise it may be construed as bullying and we'll both be in trouble via the Joint Enterprise law (Panorama).
Back on subject (nearly, not FOI): I'm just disappointed that the content of these leaked emails isn't front page BBC website news. No mention from George at 6pm either. Here we have caught colluding academics fabricating climate data, and politicians discussing whether one child policies and carbon credits can save the planet based on this information. Bit serious that. It's just my opinion but maybe the license fee paying public might want to know about it? At least I've found this debate going on here buried in blog somewhere. It's troubling that Strictly is given a lot more airtime.
To quote Paul Kerr above: "Well done Nigel Lawson for his article in 'The Times' highlighting the importance of this story. (One cant help feel the BBC is afraid of this story)"
Complain about this comment
The emails are only the start. They reveal unprecedented academic misconduct.
But the data and the computer programs included in the leak show that they do not have a clue about the earth's climate.
They have lost data. Tampered with data. Altered figures. Selected only data that matches their theory.
This is a quote from their top programmer:
OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
Then we read about how they collate data from round the planet:
"It's the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately - meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it's restricted to Russia!!
Complain about this comment
6. At 8:45pm on 23 Nov 2009, jayfurneaux wrote:
This will change nothing. Those posting above have a clear ideological bias and already believe in a conspiracy theory (or two or three).
Just as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will take any innocuous statement and read into it their own interpretation so it is with this affair. There'll be much heat, but little light generated.
Ah that'll be para 1.2 of the rules of the game document then
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
Complain about this comment
In the intense Internet debate about this subject my attention was drawn to comments in 2005 involving prominent climate scientist Stephen H Schneider, Professor for interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, etc. Stanford University (Note 1). Professor Schneider
It is reported (Note 2) that QUOTE: He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR; and is currently a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) UNQUOTE.
In 1989 The Detroit News had an editorial starting QUOTE: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989. UNQUOTE.
Professor Schneider provides his rebuttal of this editorial (Note 3) and a follow-up item in 2005 (Note 4) which appears to me to be his attempt to justify leading climate scientists’ being economical with the truth.
In my opinion there is no justification for scientists not being honest about any uncertainty relating to those very very complex and poorly understood climate processes and drivers. If the leaked UEA CRU files are genuine (which it seems they are) then the scientists involved have done science the greatest disservice possible, undermining the credibility of all involved. We do not expect this of scientists, who we are supposed to be able to trust.
On the other hand we expect it all of the time from politicians, exemplied by the MP’s expenses scandal. The IPCC is controlled by the UN, which is a political institution with a quite obvious agenda of a) redistributing wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies, b) establishing a framework for global government, made clear in the draft Copenhagen treaty (Note 5). Anyone who has read the Commission on Global Governance’s 1995 report “Our Global Neighborhood” (Note 6) understands what the UN has planned.
NOTES:
1) see http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/
2) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
3) see http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf
4) see http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html
5) see http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
6) see http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm
Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
Complain about this comment
In defence of Prof. P Jones, the CRU and UEA, I will say this:
1 - Under the FOI it is only an offence to delete something (e.g. an email) after you have received the FOI request. If you routinely delete emails it will be beneficial.
2 - As long as the CRU ultimately publishes its research then it can refer all FOI requests to its web site and journal publications. Requests into its research can easily be considered "business as usual" requests.
However, if the emails demonstrate that Prof Jones and the CRU are deliberatly falsifying data or hiding their research then that does raise many questions over the quality of their publications and the motive behind the work.
Complain about this comment
Hacking into the computers is illegal. Publishing the e-mails is morally and possibly dubious. These are private e-mails, akin to internal e-mail traffic of any large organization. Think of your own e-mail exchanges about say stupid customers, bad data-bases, the rival companies, or just the jerk in cubical 213.
The publishing of these "e-mails" is well outside the scope of FOI, it is an invasion of privacy.
The boundary of what level of information should be available under FOI is another matter. What protections are there against harassment requests. Who bears the cost of collecting data, sending it out.
Standard policy is astronomy / space-science projects is that the raw data is available (after a 1 year period), standard processing software and manuals are also available. Often there is user support. Also there is an effort to make data generally search-able. Then there are journal articles and any press releases.
Complain about this comment
PS: Pete, thanks for reminding me of those “principles” from that staunch environmentalist-supporting AGENCY which profits from the “significant human-made global climate change” scam. I like this pair of “rules of the game”
QUOTE:
16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on climate change
We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the UK public.
17. Use emotions and visuals Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do. UNQUOTE.
16’s going to be difficult now!
Complain about this comment
"The hacking into the UEA’s ICT system certainly is law breaking; I hope the police catch and prosecute the perpetrator."
First, we don't know that any hacking was conducted. Looking at the emails an other info, eg harry_read_me, and the volume of info, it's more likely this was gathered and leaked by an insider - in this instance he may benefit from the protection of the whistlerblower act.
Further, leaking MPs expenses was illegal - I dont' recall people complaining then? There is a *clear* and undeniable public interest in the science of this, which affects all our lives, being conducted properly. Falsifying, cherrypicking and randomly stuffing data is not science. Leaning on journal editors is not science - getting guys dismissed for their views! Because they put both sides of a debate? This is science?
The emails reveal disgraceful behaviour. People should be fired. People should be prosecuted. And we should all demand that all the evidence - all the data - supposedly proving AGW is put in the public domain. I can't think of any other area of science where data is withheld in this way.
Complain about this comment
It seems the CRU and those involved have been thrown to the wolves, who are the real puppet masters? Was this data deliberately leaked because the request under FoI was inevitable? This reminds me too much of a lizard shedding its' tail, what is the next great boogy man to beat us into submission?
Complain about this comment
It is unfortunate that so few understand the systems they use everyday and in particular e-mail. E-mails are not sent to their destination like a letter but are copied at each stage/server on the journey and hence leave a trail. And yes all these messages and attachments do clog up the works. Deleting locally wont change anything. Am I wrong in thinking FOI applies to the Institution being a public body not the person being an academic, and therefore if anybody wants anything to be outside FOI they just use their own personal and private e-mail account for the communication they wish to remain private?
Complain about this comment
I can understand the frustration of staff at CRU. They are being bombarded by requests for data under FOI, and it is conceivable that some FOI requests are made purely as a time-wasting tactic and to tie up CRU’s resources by those pursuing political, rather than a scientific, agendas. After all, ‘a certain Canadian’ could get his hands dirty, do some research, gather his own data, and publishing it through the peer-review process. Instead he is has made himself the self-appointed auditor of all climate research and operates from a blog rather than through normal scientific channels. Does that not in itself undermine and subvert the peer-review process, something staff at CRU are now being accused of?
Complain about this comment
"Does that not in itself undermine and subvert the peer-review process, something staff at CRU are now being accused of?"
Er, no. It doesn't even come close. What the CRU is accused of is backroom bullying, coercion and collusion to 1) push liberal editors from their posts (and I use liberal in its true sense) and 2) intentionally diminish the impact of countering papers by ensuring they would *not* be peer reviewed. They even tried to ge university acreditation withdrawn from opposing researchers.
THis is not science, thsi is McCarthyism in lab coats.
Complain about this comment
This is a very interesting debate that would seem, I hope, to be focussing on whether or not it's in the public interest to disclose information gained illegally that might not otherwise have been so through FoIA/EIR. I'm ignoring those who are going on about the climate, they've missed the point. As an ex practitioner of FoI in the public sector, some protest and pressure groups can be a very great burden on already strained administrative staff, to the point where they are unable to carry out their proper functions. This canot be good for the public purse. It hardly seems like value for money to employ lots of admin or higher paid legal or paralegal preofessionals to deal with that. Whilst FoI is essential, there must be a balance of the rights of people to know and the reasonableness of those requesting the information. If the compliance officers are doing their job, and if information is subject to exemption, which, with research as someone has pointed out, is hardly likely, and it is not in the public interest to disclose then this should be respected. In my experience, pressure groups often won't take 'no' for an answer an will then lodge a complaint with the IC, taking up further time on presenting this information to the IC in response to any challenge, which in the end costs thousands of pounds in officer time,(taxpayers money, often) heaven knows how much carbon and trees, because sceptics don't trust the IPCC.
In terms of the climate change debate, hacking tactics won't, in the long term, serve the purposes of the sceptic camp very well as it smacks of desperation and what on earth are they so keen on disproving? Do they think we should live in a polluted hell hole? Whether or not it's warming the planet, it stinks and it kills things. That's not good either, is it?
Complain about this comment
These emails have been confirmed and the hoax of anthropomorphic climate change has been exposed. The people involved in this need to be rounded up and tried for Crimes Against Humanity. Whoever the hackers are should be immortalized as heroes to humanity.
This pseudo-science is being used to implement a global tax on carbon for the whole of the world. Through carbon credits and cap-and-trade the Globalists stand to make trillions of dollars from us, the Average Joe.
This could not have come at a better time. Not only is the Copenhagen Treaty dead in its tracks these hacks called scientists have been outed.
Finally, it is shameful that a whole generation of kids have been brought up to think that CO2, an essential gas for our existence, is bad.
For shame on these people.
Read more about it at http://www.thetelecrapurinal.com/news/
The Mad Ape
Complain about this comment
Made Ape, exactly what I was alluding to.
It doesn't matter whether climate change is or isn't happening, in terms of this debate and 'crimes against humanity'? Bit strong mate, bit strong.
You are obviously one of those that subsrcribe to this [c.c] being misinformation promulgated to fund an industry that otherwise wouldn't be there? Do you not think it's possible that those who deny climate change are protecting the interests of the entrenched energy manufacturers? And are probably being paid a lot of money to maintain the status quo?
It is in the public interest to have a full debate, the science I have seen points to the fact that climate change is happening, whether it's our fault or not is not the point, we should, as a generation, start to do something about it. Anyway if the evidence to the contrary was so overwhelming, why hasn't it won the arguement?
Sorry, I forgot about the lone Prof Jones keeping all the bad stuff to himself.
Complain about this comment
tom_cripin51 (#27): "They are being bombarded by requests for data under FOI"
What evidence have you got of any such "bombardment"?
"it is conceivable that some FOI requests are made purely as a time-wasting tactic"
Is there any reference in the FOI Act about the motives and tactics of the requestor? I guess not. The data must be provided regardless of its future use or abuse. It is up to the requestee to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the request, and I do not think there has been any attempt at that.
Complain about this comment
Omnologos, it is in the spirit of the Act to disclose information and I, as a practitioner always approached it as such. Requesters however, can be very mischevious in their intentions and if you start to believe that all compliance officers 'judge' the intentions and motivations of the requestors, then you start to act accordingly. The whole idea of FoI is then lost in FoI campaigners sending in spurious requests just in order to 'test' the system, practitioners become sceptical about any request, however benign and will try their level best to 'prove' that the request is unreasonable, even if it is not.
Complain about this comment
32 "What evidence have you got of any such "bombardment"?" Indeed.
IIRC there were a whole 12 FOI requests. Yep 12.
If CRU had simply followed established scientific practice, they wouldn't have had any.
*simples*
Complain about this comment
Martin - what are your thoughts on this development?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/cei-files-notice-of-intent-to-sue-nasa-giss/
"Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University..."
Complain about this comment
One of the travesties is that the BBC have suppressed this story. If these emails are true then this country is committing billions of pounds of tax payers contributions to carbon reductions based on a false premise. That has to be one of the biggest stories to hit the new but where is the investigative journalism the BBC professes itself to be so proud of?
Shame on you BBC
Complain about this comment
Numerous comment here suggest that those files that were leaked are private, but they are not necessarily so. As I understand it, in the UK E-mails exchanged using your employer’s facilities are not personal or private but available for legitimate scrutiny by your employer – who employs the researchers at the UEA. As a previous comment points out, the UEA CRU Policy on FOI states that such E-mails are not private property. Even if it is illegal for an unauthorised individual to steal or leak these files, it is quite possible that such an action would be considered justified under the circumstances. The English courts have recently ruled in favour of environmental terrorists who attacked an industrial installation QUOTE: Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law UNQUOTE (Note 5). It is possible that the courts would find that the threat of unwarranted taxation and economic damage in the guise of global warming justifies breaking the law.
The UK’s Lord Lawson today announced the formation of The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Note 2) of which Dr Benny Peiser said QUOTE:The Foundation’s aim is to become the most trustworthy and readily accessible source for those, whether in politics, the media or among the wider public, who wish to be informed of the most reliable and authoritative analysis of both the claims of climate alarmists and the policies currently in place or being discussed, whether in Copenhagen or elsewhere UNQUOTE.
The only problem with this Foundation is that involves politicians, which immediately makes thinking people suspicious of its motives.
A more reassuring development is that QUOTE: TaxPayers’ Alliance Reports Phil Jones et al to Information Commissioner UNQUOTE (Note 3 and 4). The involvement of the UK’s TaxPayers’ Alliance is long overdue. I tried to get it interested months ago but it didn’t want to know. Well, better late than never.
Today the University of East Anglia issued statements (Note 6) which included complaints about the “illegal” manner in which those files were leaked. including one from Professor Phil Jones which acknowledges QUOTE: My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues. UNQUOTE. He has a very difficult task to persuade us to accept his closing words and would have an equally difficult task to convince a jury if his own actions are considered to be illegal.
No matter how hard Realclimate’s Gavin Schnidt tries to stem the flood, this will not go away. As is said elsewhere (Note 7) QUOTE: Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency. UNQUOTE.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
2) see http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/the-global-warming-policy-foundation-gwpf-launched-today/
3) see http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/cru-foi-emails-taxpayers-alliance-reports-phil-jones-et-al-to-information-commissioner/
4) see http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaign/2009/11/cru-emails-reveal-inconvenient-truths-about-foi.html
5) see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
6) see http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
7) see http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of-foi-evasion/
Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
Complain about this comment
It's all to easy see this argument spiral into a diatribe on climate change/global warming. Leave that aside for a moment.
This particular issue hinges on a couple of key points.
Why did an academic institution resist attempts at peer review so vigorously? If they had the certainty in their data and conclusions, then allowing a peer review can only strengthen their position. A peer review by a hostile party that has to admit "Oh You're right after all" only adds strength to the initial findings. Debunking any challenge from a hostile reviewer, adds credibility to the initial findings.
BUT! To refuse peer review suggests an uncertainty in the evidence or the calculation. To a scientist - elimination of that uncertainty would surely be paramount. The purity of science should demand confirmation one way or another. To behave otherwise suggests a zealotry that is more dependent on blind faith than empirical evidence.
Secondly - If this research has been funded through the public purse then subject to the limitations of privacy agreements with third parties (and those agreements not leading to a breach on the law) the request for information is not optional.
It would appear that there is an agreement on the fact that Prof. Jones resisted the attempts to gain information. Consensus that he was very anxious not to divulge any information by virtue of advising people to remain silent about the existence of the FOI act.
The issue therefore is not one of whether or not there would be challenges to the climate change findings of the CRU - it's whether or not people can flout the law and be allowed to continue without consequence. This country saw fit to tell the MP's that they could not refuse information under an FOI request. Perhaps Professor Jones moves in even more exalted circles?
I for one say release all the information - all 20 years of it. And whichever way it comes down in favour of climate change or not, at least the people will know.
Complain about this comment
Impressive contributions above but it would be great if the pro GW folk stayed to discuss.
Pete#19
'Rules of the game' this is so scientific it sounds like something the nazis might have written. So the 'deniers' will soon be prosecuted or thrown into prison, burned at the stake whatever...?
It looks like FOI was not high on the list of priorities for the CRU team. I am not a scientist but if this was a medical issue say a study into cancer therapy can you imagine how the university, GMC and BBC for that matter would react.
There is going to be very detailed analysis of what is contained in the material hacked or left lying around awaiting FOI release.
It is still plainly obvious the BBC and MSM are very afraid of this story. Editorial Values of BBC should require a fair discussion of the contents. The attempt on Newsnight last night was quite embarasssing
'Serving the public interest
We seek to report stories of significance. We will be vigorous in driving to the heart of the story and well informed when explaining it.'
Complain about this comment
In 2005 Tony Blair was simultaneously head of the G8 and the EU and the UK govt decided to use the alarming notion of 'catastrophic climate change' to alter our behaviour and create a new world order (their words)
As a prime contributor to the Hadley Centre (for climate change)via £143 million of tax payer money since 1993, they are in a good position to achieve this. Hadley are the largest contributor to the IPCC and collaborate with Cru on their extensive Hadley/CRu climate products which underpin the IPCC assessments.
The Govt has used the 'rules of the game' to ensure everyone is on message-including to their shame-the BBC.
This article details chapter and verse the sequence of events and includes material from the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons-ever eager to issue personal carbon ration cards.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments
Tonyb
Complain about this comment
Glad the BBC is finally looking at the most significant event to happen since the Watergate affair. The implications of this deception are so big that I'm amazed the BBC aren't giving this front page coverage?
Having read about half of the emails in the file, I cannot believe that these people who provide most of the 'standard' climate information to the IPCC, could treat science in such a cavalier way. It appears that if the data observed did not fit their pre-defined view of how climate operates, they either bludgeoned that data to make it fit, or used statistics and graphics to make it appear to conform. Shameful!
The information contained in the document about how they tried to subvert the peer review process to promote papers conforming to their biased view or to prevent differing views being published defies belief. Shameful!
The obvious fear they displayed when asked to provide the information on which the IPCC based it's recommendations to politicians on makes me very suspicious about the quality of their work. When they continued to refuse FOI requests for the base data from other reputable scientist, that suspicion deepened and it looked like they where orchestrating a PR campaign, rather than doing science. Shameful.
These people need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and a fresh start made on the science of climate, using real scientists who understand and implement the proper scientific method.
The climate debate is far from over.
Complain about this comment
This really is a stupid issue and belongs in the realms of Conspiracy Theory programmes.
I don't see that anyone has the right to a discussion between two people working stuff out, which is what most of these emails are. At this rate, the Climate Change Deniers and their hacking friends will be insisting that it is their legal right to go and bug the canteen, since there are probably even juicier snippets to be had there.
The only thing that I think people have the right to, is that when a researcher claims something (whether that is a scientist or a journalist) then people can demand that the researcher proves their case - something scientists do to the full, and journalists and conspiracy theorists almost never do.
Emails between scientists may be fascinating for those who really could do with getting a life, but really I have no time for chatter and am only interested in evidence that is properly presented. THAT is what counts.
Freedom of Information is important - but we should have NO right to gossip or to private information ad nauseum.
Catch the Hackers and prosecute them and their paymasters. I cannot see that they are contributing anything valuable and are simply thieves.
Complain about this comment
@ Gurubear #42
Have you actually read any of the comments on this and the other relevant blogs on the BBC? Regardless of the content of the emails, the issue has moved on from that.
The problem is that the content of all of the released information appears to show that the CRU avoided FOIA requests, in some cases allegedly deleted emails directly related to FOIA requests, and manipulated the temperature records the were using to show warming that did not exist (and in some cases to remove warming that did appear to exist) in order to show a clear rise in temperature from 1850 onwards.
All of this indicates that they do not have faith in their data standing up to scrutiny. If that is the case, how can this data be used to drive global policies that will cost billions of pounds?
Complain about this comment
Gurubear, you talk about "evidence" but would you like to provide some convincing evidence that our use of fossil fuels is having any significant impact upon global climates.
When discussing the recent floods in Cumbria the Environment Agency repeatedly implies that they are the result of climate change when they are really simply instances of our unpredictable weather. If you're interested I discuss this further on the BBC's blog "Is Cumbria a victim of climate change?" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/is_cumbria_a_victim_of_climate.html
Regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnos(cep)tic
Complain about this comment
Oh silly me it's all just a 'Conspiracy Theory!' Thanks for clearing this one up Gurubear. I notice that Russia Today seems to be all over this story with some fantastic coverage. Good old RT. BBC's on about bullying again. Maybe they could argue that these academics are now being bullied now their little secret's out? Come on BBC I'm trying to help you. I pay you enough.
Complain about this comment
Sea levels rising? Where? What will sink the UEA/CRU unit? All we want is the facts. Not the tired old computer manipulated, hockey stick readjusted, grant implemented, AGW biased lies. Now is the time for geeks to ferret out all the data that will hopefully see the academic obfuscators made to pay dearly for their shameful scientific climate change hegemony.
Time for the Nobel Foundation to bite the bullet and remove some of their recent "Planet Saving" incumbents from their positions as prizewinners. Money returned too!
Complain about this comment
Speaking of freedom of information, the BBC is not being very free with information about what is an important story. Front page please and on every news bulletin explaining the facts and implications. Let the wider public then make an informed and considered judgement.
Complain about this comment
The only relatively even-handed of Climateate was Mondays Newsnight piece. No wonder we have to go scouring the Internet to find out what the story is all about if the BBC wont cover it. The BBC is fast losing credibility which is a shame. When scientists talk about 'hide the decline' and using 'tricks' the BBC should be trying to find out what 'decline' they are hiding.
Complain about this comment
@ Jayfurneaux - if you actually read CA then you will have seen that Gavin himself has been in touch regarding the timeline of the "Hack" and the IP of the computers used. Steve has been most helpful in this respect
The discussion in much of the blogosphere has now moved on from the emails to the Code. I only hope that those who would seek to bury the story are not successful un this instance. A full investigation into every knook and cranny is required to ensure that the future of science is returned to the correct path.
Complain about this comment
This story is so confusing there are now scientist redrawing climate graphs (http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/new-the-deleted-data/) stating that they are providing accurate graphs which they have been able to draw up due to the stastics and discusions realting to the deliberate manipulation of data as exposed in the emails and they are showing copy off said emails while explaining what they are doing, why is this not being challenged in the mainstream media or by the scientists or more woryingly does this mean that what they are doing is factually correct. Scientists and mainstream media are all saying this is not about data manipulation and yet the emails do discuss data manipulation I am desperate to know what is the truth of the matter and who should be trusted as telling it?
Complain about this comment
The science is Settled, move on, if you ask questions you are a 'deniar'.
BBC wheels on 'Mann' the subject of much critiscim, and at the centre of all the email scandal, to suddenly explain all is well
The science is settled?
not even at the IPCC it would seem?
from the telegraph today:
One of his IPCC co-authors Eduardo Zorita has demanded that Mann should be banned from contributing to future reports because his scientific assessments are “not credible any more.” Zorita also calls for the barring of CRU’s director Phil Jones and another IPCC lead author, Stefan Rahmstorf.
Zorita, who works in the paleoclimate department of the Institute of Coastal Research, has issued a statement on his website in which he complains that the “scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.”
“These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.”
Zorita was one of the contributing authors to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He’s unlikely to be asked to contribute to the Fifth. Indeed, as he ruefully acknowledges, this brave admission could well be the death of his career:
By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.
Yep. I think the poor fellow’s right. Never mind the damning revelations. The vested interests behind AGW are going to make darned sure that that AGW bandwagon keeps roll roll rollin’ along.
And never mind which honest, decent saps get squashed under its wheels.
c'mon bbc, try to at least report the story,
when, we look back in 6 months, I really the bbc's reputation for impartiality will be totally destroyed, with all of the implications that entails.
Or at least report the story about the story
Complain about this comment
Could someone here answer a stupid question for me.
If these guys are right and so sure that we need to drastically change our ways. Why is it a problem to publish their data and calculations.
My point is that their research does not seem to have any commercial value so why not shout your proof from the rooftops. You may convince skepticaly people like myself if you justify your position.
Could it be that they don't want anyone else to check their math?
Complain about this comment
#52 doug,
Some of the emails reveal that the data holders believed the requests were disingenuous in nature and that the data was only been sought after in order to find the equivalent of typos and use those to publically discredit the work.
Complain about this comment
If climate change is a hoax, why is China implementing a programme to reduce CO2 emissions? Have they fallen for a western plot to curb their growth?
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] This could not have come at a better time. Not only is the Copenhagen Treaty dead in its tracks these hacks called scientists have been outed.this is not that much good issue....
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS