Monday, November 23, 2009

Reporting the CRU to the Information Commissioner

Further to the excellent and intriguing work the Devil and others have been doing digging through the leaked/hacked CRU emails, Kitchen readers may be interested to know that the TPA are reporting Prof Phil Jones and colleagues to the Information Commissioner for what appears to be a deliberate attempt to breach the Freedom of Information Act. Our full post on the importance of defending FoI, and how it applies to this case is here.

If anyone is found to have deliberately destroyed information after an FoI request was made, the law states that they may be subject to a criminal conviction and a fine of up to £5,000.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Those e-mails also give rise to the possibility of charges of conspiracy and incitement.

Anonymous said...

Also international fraud (a seperate charge of fraud for each country/state that it has been commited in)

It's going to be a good christmas this year. :D

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of scientists are intelligent, decent people who have devoted their life to the pursuit of truth. The vast majority of politicians (professional and amateur) are unintelligent, self seeking, liars.

Anonymous said...

But didn't one of the emails say that they were using a line for denial based on advice from the _Information Commisioner_ ?

In which case can there be an FOIA request to the Information Commissioner to determine exactly what advice they were given?

Anonymous said...

So whats our glorious government gonna do ?
Britain leads the world in climate change technology.
No Britain leads the world in climate change bullshit.
Some face.
Some egg.

Mark Wallace said...

Anon @7.15 One of the emails did say their rejections were using advice from the Information Commissioner, but that doesn't change the fact that deleting info that is subject to an FoI request is illegal. Feeling the need to hide it also suggest they felt they were likely to have to release it eventually, too. It's worth noting that IC "advice" is a formal stage of the process and can be appealed.

Anon @ 7:03
It's touching to know you have such blind faith in the altruism of scientists! If anything these emails show they are just as flawed as anyone else. You're right that many politicians are dishonest, but that doesn't change the facts of this case.

Anonymous said...

These people seem to be scientists in the same way sociologists are:

PC - keep the language appropriate
consensus - don't rock the boat. Who cares is you're talking shite as long as everybody else agrees. No dissent will be tolerated.
Not a lot of actual mathematical ability shown in analysing the methodology or the results in evidence.

Anonymous said...

We see exactly the same methods being used by the climate-change lobby that the tobacco control lobby used: manipulation of data, cherry-picking, concealment of the 'wrong' results, refusal to debate the 'science', ostracism of those who refuse to accept the 'orthodoxy', in short, the end justifying some very dodgy means.

Jay