Comments on: “Misconceived”

By: Oh no, not the tree rings again…Garbage in-garbage out? | pindanpost

Oh no, not the tree rings again…Garbage in-garbage out? | pindanpost — Fri, 18 May 2012 00:08:22 +0000

[...] obviously haven’t heard about “the Auditor”…( “Misconceived”), or The Engineer’s take on tree rings…(The Death of the Hockey [...]

By: seanbrady

seanbrady — Mon, 14 May 2012 22:04:01 +0000

I recommend looking at the post entitled “Yamal FOI Sheds New Light on Flawed Data”, which was three posts before this one.

For more information on the relevance of Yamal, look for the first section of that post, which is entitled “Relevance of Yamal”.

By: Edwin

Edwin — Mon, 14 May 2012 07:14:50 +0000

I am a layman so please bear with me and point out my error.
This issue seems to involve who has the licence to use the data and the terms of use.
Since no one challenged Wahl and Ammann’s right to issue licence, I assume that their rights on the data have been proven beyond doubt.
What remains in question is the intent or terms of the licence for use of the data when the data was passed to Mann.
Apparantly Mann did not disclose in full the licnece on the data when he send them to Jones and so from then on UEA’s opinion is just conjecture/hear say and has no legal footing. If there is a licence then the full content of the terms of use should be made available.
As to the enforcement of the licence, by rhe fact that for years Wahl and Ammann did not file any complaint over IPCC’s reference to their work and that IPCC ‘s charter would make such data available to the public, I cannot see how to establish the fact that Wahl and Ammann still wish to enforce such licence is there ever was one. Therefore UEA has very little ground.
If Wahl and Ammann do object then they should sue Mann for breach of license and may be everyone involved too and retract the reference in IPCC’s literatures.
I must be missing some thing here.

Steve: i’d express the point differently. It was also a submitted article rather ‘data”. I agree that they have to prove confidentiality at each stage of document custody.

By: Solomon Green

Solomon Green — Sun, 13 May 2012 18:12:42 +0000

“One of the curiosities in the procedure is that I was never provided copies of the University’s submissions or arguments”.

Is it possible, even at this late stage, that you can bring this into your appeal? The tribunal might have some interesting comments to make on this failure by the Information Commissioner.

By: AntonyIndia

AntonyIndia — Sun, 13 May 2012 01:35:58 +0000

My comment vanished in thin air: no trace left, no e-mail received. I hope you are not picking up bad habits Steve:
this is looking Real Climatesque. If you don’t like it please leave the box and just snip it in you normal fashion.

By: ianl8888

ianl8888 — Sun, 13 May 2012 01:16:55 +0000

They have conceded that the Police have allowed them to search the server

That is a BIG step forward - I greatly admire your patience. My quite long-life experience has shown me that when "Authority" feels threatened, it changes the rules, constantly

By: Don Keiller

Don Keiller — Sat, 12 May 2012 19:26:27 +0000

@ian18888.

The wheels grind very slowly, thanks largely to CRU obstructionist tactics.
The Tribunal decision is “disproportionate” they plead.
There’s too much data to search, it’s too expensive, it will take too much time.

I got that one slapped down.

They have conceded that the Police have allowed them to search the server.
Now they are saying that depending on what the email says they “reserve the right to apply new exemptions”

I think I have won that one too, but who knows?

I think the next one they will try is to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.
But that will be difficult as they should have made any appeal within 28 days.

Still it will string it out just that bit longer….

By: w.w.wygart

w.w.wygart — Sat, 12 May 2012 14:04:17 +0000

The power [more appropriately 'authority'] to say ‘yes’ is actually the greatest power, which is why people who have only the power to say ‘no’ tend to exercise it with such wild abandon, they are essentially powerless.

W^3

By: paul

paul — Sat, 12 May 2012 04:47:04 +0000

A few years ago I returned to the UK for a visit with my wife who is a New Zealander. One of the places I took her was to Runnymede where the Magna Carta was signed by King John, which gave his noble knights the right to be heard before being punished. The decision to refuse access to the submissions made in “confidence” has occured only because the tribunal allowed those submissions to be made “in confidence”. I believe they have erred in law to allow such submissions to be made in that way. Surely the tribunal works within a set of rules?

By: ianl8888

ianl8888 — Sat, 12 May 2012 04:42:00 +0000

@Don Keiller

Could you tell us, please, what the current state-of-play is with your own battle ?

It’s been some months since I last read of this and I’m sure several deadlines have passed since then