It seems that the MOD are giving the ICO a hard time. It has been agreed that I would repeat the request for one email about the “new guidelines” which the Met Office said they held but have refused to disclosed.

I made the request on Whatdotheyknow and the Met office should reply by 23 September. The ICO have the email and say they don’t know what the fuss is about and if it is refused again they will deal with it separately from the the general complaint.

Lord Oxburgh, I don’t think anyone disagrees with the Oxford English Dictionary that the word “trick” can carry the meaning you have given. But there are seven meanings listed and if you want to know the meaning intended by the author, you have to look at context. Did you happen to consult the Oxford Dictionary regarding the meaning of the term “hide?”

Cough Cough

See document: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

A lttle while ago someone on Bishop Hill pointed out that the 10 of the 11 papers mentioned above in Oxburgh’s Appendix B were also included in the list of papers handed over by UEA to the HoC Science and Technology Committee for the meeting held on 1 March 2010.

See page 27 of:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf

So, UEA give a list of 25 papers to HoC in February 2010 and, by some mechanism which is unknown to his Lordship,
10 of them are included “for assessment” by his panel and another 3 are classed as “supporting documentation”.

Therefore, irrespective of any involvement by the Royal Society in the selection process, the papers offered for consideration were selected by UAE.

Graham Stringer is surely aware of this and no doubt he will be giving his Lordship a good scragging later.

Whats the latest on Mr Mitchells refusal to make his data available?
Concerning the reformation of IPCC I really hope that Pachauri stays.Because that will totally kill the the trust of IPCC permanently.
Oxbourg is an embarrasment and an insult to everyones intellect.The low scientific standards of climate science is appalling.

Oxburgh was just reciting the mantra that Russell put in paragraph 34 on page 90 of his Report. Myles Allen made similar comments at the Royal Institution debate as did Trevor Davies and Bob Watson at the Guardian debate. Roger Harrabin went on about it in pub afterwards. They just “don’t get it”. Two days ago the midday Radio 4 programme had a phone in on FoIA. The overwhelming public opinion is for more not less FoI.

What they are missing is that what they are really moaning about is the Aarhus Convention, a United Nations Treaty which has been adopted as European Law. Governments have so far only paid lip sevice to it. The IAC also ignored it. However it binds all EU countries to promote the principles of the Aarhus Convention in international bodies such as the IPCC and to progressively publish environmental information on the Internet. It also binds them to consult the public on environmental decisions.

How the IPCC is reformed is the most important environmental decision I can think of. If at the IPCC Plenary next month European governments do not honour their treaty obligations they could find some one challenges them. When Greenpeace did it the British government had redo its consultation process at considerable cost to the taxpayer. service

Far more sinister was what the Lord said at the end. He advised the chairman of he committee that it would be time to look at the provisions of the FOIA again, because it isn’t good if anybody, even ‘people without good cause or from foreign countries’ could ask for information. And indeed, according to the chairman’s answer, a new look at the FOIA is on the cards, with a meeting of both HoL and HoC committees taking place in October.
That is the one to watch out for, never mind the whitewashes.

~~~~~~
(HoL = House of Lords/HoC = House of Commons)