For that matter, Sweden’s Nobel Prize committee should have asked these questions itself, and demanded sound answers — and by not doing so, its members have discredited themselves as judges of science. I call on them to resign so that the committee can regain its own credibility.

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/online_petitions_documents_from_#incoming-104

Apparently all data passed from the UK Parliament under the Freedom of Information Act has Parliamentary Copyright. So you can ask a question and get a (possibly embarrassing) answer, but you’re not allowed to tell anyone about it! FOI is strictly single-person!

So, Steve, perhaps you may get data from the Hadley centre, but you then mustn’t use it on your web site….

It is probable that future Int’l Treaties that purport to bind gross polluters like China will include executory clauses that will only spring into effect upon some triggering event, reported by a “neutral” party like IPCC. Failure to properly document the basis of IPCC’s claims could allow a nation to refuse to follow through with their treaty obligations – where the nation disputes the “neutral” party’s good faith and duty of care. A gross polluter could rightfully claim to be a signatory in good standing but refuse to modify their behavior until IPCC goes back and brings all of the relevant documentation into compliance with Wegman’s proposed standards.

Of course, this difficulty only exists when we ask countries to have faith in the output of imperfect men and women and not under a more objective scheme such as that called for by Ross McKitrick’s T3 tax.

Michael Smith [#20, 39] and Stan [#24], above are basically right that countries exist in a state of nature with each other so no entity can force another country to follow an international law without some threat or application of economic, diplomatic, or military force. International law is, in many ways, like contract law, and countries obey it b/c it’s in their interest to follow through with their agreements.

They’re only looking at one-half of the nature of law, however. Law can create POWER in a sovereignty to force a person, corporation, or gov’t to comply with desired behavior. Where int’l law creates POWER, an affected country can choose to comply with an adverse ruling or reneg on it’s agreements.
Law can also create a DEFENSE to legal obligations. Where int’l law creates a DEFENSE, an affected country can refuse to comply with adverse policies while remaining in good standing in it’s agreements.

Most countries want free access to the oceans, and want to know where national boundaries are, so Steve M.’s [#21] example of the Law of the Sea is a great example of international law that will be respected by sovereign countries. Climate treaties are different. Many countries might find it in their interest to sign on to climate treaties to get along with Western democracies. Western countries will very likely offer some incentive for developing countries like China and India to sign on. The developing countries may later find it in their interest to look for loopholes once the mandated policies that will retard economic growth kick in.

Who knows ? An IPCC that doesn’t comply with its own policies may end up forming a big loophole.

Are there other people peppering them with these kinds of requests?

39 Michael Smith says:

July 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
D. Patterson, regarding your comment 32:

Sure, there is always the possibility of persuading a sufficient percentage of mankind to change the IPCC. But I don’t see that the mere existence of that possibility rebuts my contention that “international law” is a fiction. There is, after all, a distinction between the *existence* of an agency that functions as an enforcement mechanism — versus the mere *possibility* that one may succeed in building sufficient support for the creation of such an agency to make it a reality.

I understand the point of view you are expressing, and I am familiar with the reasoning behind it. However, I must must point to some reasons why describing the international law as merely “fiction” is unsustainable, unless you also regard all law as fiction. For example with respect to the apparent non-compliance with certain IPCC agreements, seeking a remedy requires either an administrative relief from the IPCC itself, the Government Focal Points, or the government/s authorized to govern the Government Focal Points. This is due to the fact that sovereign right to resolve disputes is reserved to sovereigns and extended to affairs between sovereign governments. International government is literally defined as government inter or between governments. Laws which are superior to and limit the rights of sovereigns is properly termed as supranational government. Are these legal concepts a polite or impolite fiction? Perhaps, if you subscribe to a subjective point of view. It must be noted that international law and supranational law are in fact real and often devastatingly so whenever they are executed. Does a failure to apply and execute an international law or supranational law in some or most cases necessarily mean or imply such law is a fiction? If so, then national laws must also be no less fictional, because they too are sometimes or perhaps most times not executed or enforced either.

For example, how often are drivers who exceed the speed limits and incur the risk of killing and maiming other people actually arrested and prosecuted to enforce laws prohibiting speeding and reckless driving? Ask yourself how often the laws prohibiting murder are not enforced? How often are laws regarding falsification of tax returns not enforced? How often do you suppose there is a failure to enforce the obligations of the IPCC under international law versus these other national and sub-national laws?

It is not necessary to create “such an agency to make it a reality.” The agency exists under national laws. For Canada the agency is Environment Canada. For the United States the agency is NOAA. When acceptable remedies are not available from those agencies, there are regulations and legal statutes which provide other avenues to secure a remedy. They do have the authority to enforce the agreements with respect to their own participation. If and when these organizations fail to do so, it is a failure of national law, because all international law or public law between sovereign nationals is a failure of the respective national laws.

Nor do I think that Steve’s citing of treaties rebuts my contention, either. I’m not saying all treaties are useless or ineffective — they are not — but the fact remains that if and when governments decide to *ignore* treaties, there is no third party with the power to enforce compliance. There is, at that point, only the option of one or more governments deciding to use force to compel compliance.

The same is true of intra-national disputes involving insurrection and more. President Andrew Jackson once said of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court: “Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it….” President Jackson gave substance to the constitutional law regarding the principle of separation of powers by asserting and exercising it, rather than making it a fiction with inaction.

I readily concede that there is a body of rules that is generally referred to as “international law” and that many nations pledge to be bound by them. But if they were real laws, such pledges would not be necessary.

Again, the IPCC agreements are an extension of the national laws into the relations between sovereign governments, so they are just as real or not as the national laws from which they originate. Making any law amount to more than a fiction requires responsible leadership which is accountable for the application of the law. When you and other members of your respective communities work together to re-change and restore non-biased leadership of the WMO to reflect your concerns for enforcement of the relevant agreements, you’ll quickly see IPCC come into compliance with those agreements. It has taken more than 35 years for the present leadership of the WMO, UNEP, and their member nations and organizations to mutually appoint people sharing the same beliefs and goals. Changing the leadership in only a few dozen critical positions in these organizations is sufficient to very rapidly restore an effective semblance of unbiased participation by opposition parties in the scientific and political deliberations of the IPCC. Without responsible leadership, accountability is lost. Without accountability, enforcement of regulations, laws, and agreements can be disregarded with impunity. Once any embargo on divergent scientific research has been terminated, the public can and most likely will reflect the merits of this diversity in scientific research. If you really and truly want divergent scientific research to be accorded a fair and proper hearing and consideration by the IPCC and the public, it is up to each and everyone to insist upon it and not take no for an answer. Otherwise, inaction results in a legal fiction, because ultimately and in concert with others, YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT responsible for the leadership representing you.

Mark Wells, if you are ligit, I want to thank you for putting the weakest possible agruments against transparency and availability of research data and methods all in one place for us to view. Do you actually know any scientists who adhere to any of your reasons for witholding data and other information?

Nope, I’m just speculating, proposing arguments that could be made for withholding data.

And P.S. to Steve: thanks for pointing out your FAQ page.

Steve: IT’s not an up-to-date FAQ page and was really dealing with issues from a couple of years ago. But I did want to say somewhere that I’m not, in Michael Tobis’ phrase, “in it for the gold”. Having said that, I have no objection to making money.

You seem to have a lot of trouble reading what I wrote. If I want to impute a motive to a “Wide swath” of people, I’ll do so in plain language. I didn’t do so here.

Okey dokey. Not a wide swath.

In my opinion, Mitchell is simply embarrassed at how feeble his written contributions as Review Editor were and is embarrassed at that. OTherwise, I’m sure that he’d willingly turn over his review comments. As to why Ammann and Briffa are withholding those comments, I suspect that the reluctance relates more to pettiness and spitefulness.

Just a few.

Steve: You got a better explanation? I’d be happy to provide a more generous interpretation if you have one.

Nothing from you in this thread except this one.