Interestingarticle at Science (mag) Insider
here. The writer sought perspectives on potential liability in relation to FOI from two aspects: the deletion of emails subject to an FOI request:
According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt.
and Jones’ claim to have persuaded UEA FOI officials to ignore FOI requests from Climate Audit readers:
“Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit,” Jones wrote in a 2007 email. According to Moffatt, the U.K.’s FOI law is supposed to be “identity blind” meaning that requests should be judged on the merits, not who does the requesting.
Take a look.
Charles of WUWT offers a new and interesting theory of the file: that the file was not “stolen”, it was “found”. See
here. Charles’ epithet: “Never assume malice where stupidity will do”.
Here’s his scenario. Continue reading →
A CA readr has organized the Harry_Read_Me file here. Take a look.
And we thought GISTEMP was bad. And it’s not like the underlying calculations are very complicated.
IPCC policies state that their process is supposed to be open and transparent and that all comments are to be archived. Previously, we observed that the Lead Author Responses to our Review Comments were completely unresponsive on key issues. Under IPCC policies, the Review Editor is charged with seeing that this doesn’t happen. John Mitchell of Hadley Center was Review Editor of chapter 6. Despite policies to the contrary, the IPCC refused to provide complete comments by Mitchell and other Review Editors, providing only their sing-off statements.
David Holland attempted to obtain Mitchell’s review. These were refused on a variety of pretexts: first, that they had been destroyed; when that didn’t work, on the grounds that Mitchell had acted in a “personal” capacity; when that didn’t work (due to the fact that David Holland requested FOI information on who paid for his travel to IPCC meetings, they adopted the strategy referred to by Phil Jones – that IPCC was an international organization and that responding to FOI would interfere with UK relations with an international organization.
Ross McKitrick wrote me reporting that Mitchell made some on-point comments about the Hockey Stick issue. Mitchell’s comments could have been made by a CA reader. For example:
Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
There’s more. Continue reading →
Judy Curry writes in as follows:
Having been riveted for the last few days by posts in the blogosphere on the HADCRU hack and the increasing attention being given to this by the mainstream media, I would like to provide an “external but insider” assessment and perspective. Continue reading →
Good notes on source code by a blogger here/ Also here
The emails are only the start of this. The zip includes data and code. Reader Neal writes as follows (SM Note: Anthony reports below that he has verified these comments in the following location /documents/osborn-tree6/mann/oldprog
in the files maps12.pro maps15.pro maps24.pro):
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. Continue reading →
Judy Curry writes in as follows: (please comment here)
Continue reading →
Like many other people, I’m gradually digesting the CRU letters. Obviously I’m going to comment on them but I’m going to start a little slowly. Here’s one that’s a little fun, Continue reading →
Some actions by whistleblowers in the U.K. are protected under the U.K. Public Interest Disclosure Act Continue reading →
