In May of 2008 a series of emails were exchanged by the Team. First from Tim Osborne to Caspar Ammann.
Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process. We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or
that we retained any that you may have sent.
Okay, that seems fair enough, Ammann replies
Oh MAN! will this crap ever end??
Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance digging through emails. I don’t recall from the top of my head any specifics about IPCC.
I’m also sorry that you guys have to go through this BS. You all did an outstanding job and the IPCC report certainly reflects that science and literature in an accurate and balanced way.
That last bit needs some repeating and emphasis.
the IPCC report certainly reflects that science and literature in an accurate and balanced way
Yes, well. There you have it; ‘accurate and balanced’. But then the cover up starts. An email from Phil Jones.
Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA, Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn’t get any additional comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith should say that he didn’t get any papers through the IPCC process.either. I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn’t get any. What we did get were papers sent to us directly – so not through IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments. As for (3) Tim has asked Caspar, but Caspar is one of the worse responders to emails known. I doubt either he emailed Keith or Keith emailed him related to IPCC. I think this will be quite easy to respond to once Keith is back. From looking at these questions and the Climate Audit web site, this all relates to two papers in the journal Climatic Change. I know how Keith and Tim got access to these papers and it was nothing to do with IPCC.
So everyone ‘could’ or ‘should’ say this or that. No suggestion that they simply tell the truth.
These emails are now in the public domain. As Ammann indicated
If I would consider my texts to potentially get wider dissemination then I would probably have written them in a different style.
Watts up with that? is reporting an email press release from a Graham Smith Deputy Commissioner in the UKs Information Commissioners Office that is potentially explosive. (I can’t find a copy on the ICO website, so I can’t be sure of its veracity).
Norfolk Police are investigating how private emails have become public.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is assisting the police investigation with advice on data protection and freedom of information.The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland’s FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act.
The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone. The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands – we do not make it.
These comments are quite extraordinary, if confirmed to have originated in the ICO. While the period the bring a prosecution has passed (a huge loophole in the UK FOI legislation) there can be little doubt that in Smith’s opinion a violation of the UK FOI legislation has occurred. I also think it is quite incredible that a public official would express such a strong opinion before the police inquiry is concluded.
Update I: The Times Online is now reporting the story and, via Bolt, so too is the Norwich Evening Times.
Update II: John O’Sullivan at Climategate is suggesting that Phil Jones can still be prosecuted for fraud under the UK Fraud Act (2006). While many of the actions appear to have occurred before 2006, I understand that the legislation simply formalises the common law position.
These guys really are despicable.
daddy dave
27 Jan 10 at 10:44 pm
Whilst the evidence suggests that global warming continues unabated the public perception of climate change is uncertain
rog
28 Jan 10 at 6:03 am
”But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of crashing?”
No, I wouldn’t, but nice try anyway, rog.
On topic, the scientists above should no longer be involved in research the receives any public funding.
dover_beach
28 Jan 10 at 12:01 pm
It’s official: they’re criminals.
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data.
C.L.
28 Jan 10 at 4:01 pm
Remind me…
Didn’t Tim Lambert defend these people saying the release of the emails would deter younger people from entering climate science?
Didn’t he suggest these emails were stolen and then conveniently forget that he had supported whistle-blowing in other matters when it suited him?
JC
28 Jan 10 at 4:09 pm
Failure to conform fully to a FOI request. Crime of the century. Hold on a second whilst I grab my lynching rope. Get a grip! Does this in any way falsify the numerous lines of evidence for anthopogenic climate change?
That some climate scientists have shown themselves to be as petty and small minded as the rest of the population is not news. If they falsified their data thats news but so far that has not been alleged only implied.
I understand these stolen emails are 10 years old so I assume those with a vested interest in proving the data false have been over it with a fine tooth comb yet we have heard nothing.
The very fact that human beings indulge in this sort of behaviour encourages me to to put more faith in the scientific method not less.
NMG
29 Jan 10 at 6:24 pm
I’m sure he’ll tells that to the judge and broadcast that to the court of public opinion.
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jan 10 at 8:57 am
Cute and I normally love Einsteinian quotations but still implication not allegation.
Do you have any proof of data falsification?
NMG
30 Jan 10 at 10:05 am
Not an allegation? Wow. When a government agency declares that an individual and institution have broken the law and all that stands between them and prosecution is the statute of limitations this is not an allegation? Okay.
Do I have proof? Personally, not in my possession, but this is what the media reports.
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jan 10 at 10:24 am
From the New Scientist
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jan 10 at 10:42 am
Still missing the point of data falsification on the issue at hand. That they have done the wrong thing I have fully conceded but has it negated their data? Re the Himalayan glaciers melt. Who brought this mathematical error to light? Peer review by other scientists. I would go further, I feel confident that in the totality of the evidence there will be mistakes, obfuscations, and even outright lies. Why would we assume that Climate scientists are more pure of heart than the rest of us? That is why I get frustrated hearing the “you have to decide who to trust” argument in relation to this issue. What a load of codswallop. If you must put “faith” in something because the evidence is too complex I vote for the scientific method. It may be wrong, there may be mistakes but over time they will be corrected. It is one of the few fields of human endeavour that can even claim that.
NMG
30 Jan 10 at 10:55 am
So we’re in agreement. I also vote for the scientific method. When I see that the scientiic method has not been followed, especially when people declare that they are following the scientific method, I then decide not to trust the results.
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jan 10 at 11:05 am
Why would we assume that Climate scientists are more pure of heart than the rest of us?
.
that’s the wrong way to frame it. Here’s how the system works. We assume that all scientists are pure of heart until proven otherwise. Then, once we discover that they are not, we never listen to them again.
.
The same is true for monetary fraud. If you’re convicted of fraud, there are certain things that society won’t let you do, like take care of other people’s money.
.
If you’re convicted of child molestation then from that point on, you’re not allowed to hang around schools. it’s nothing personal. Of course people are not pure of heart but the system only works if we assume good faith until proven otherwise.
daddy dave
30 Jan 10 at 11:22 am
I should clarify that I’m not comparing climategate scientists to child molesters. I was simply illustrating the concept of good faith and how it works in our society.
daddy dave
30 Jan 10 at 11:25 am
Failure to conform fully to a FOI request. Crime of the century. Hold on a second whilst I grab my lynching rope. Get a grip! Does this in any way falsify the numerous lines of evidence for anthopogenic climate change?
.
no, it doesn’t falsify them, it invalidates them. “Falsification” is only applicable in situations where scientists have behaved honestly and ethically. The fact that AGW alarmists like yourself are defending a charge that nobody is making (at least in regard to climategate/glaciergate/IPCCgate) shows how desperate you have become.
daddy dave
30 Jan 10 at 11:32 am
In agreement, maybe.
There are still many other lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate warming.
We are in agreement that the Himalayan glaciers are melting more slowly than was previously thought and that the “scientist” that included the data in the knowledge that it was false may find his future career prospects somewhat truncated.
My argument is that one cannot trust people entirely hence the checks and balances inherent in the scientific method is one of the few (relatively) reliable paths to truth we have.
It is not people we should trust, it is the evidence. They may be the worst people on earth, it doesn’t make them wrong.
NMG
30 Jan 10 at 11:39 am
Sure. Evidence is produced using a process. That process is now in doubt.
Sinclair Davidson
30 Jan 10 at 11:41 am
There are still many other lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate warming.
NMG, who, here, is denying AGW? What we are disputing is its purported magnitude. There are NOT many lines of evidence that establish that the magnitude of AGW at present concentrations, or those likely to obtain in the 21st C, is catastrophic; actually there are many lines of evidence to the contrary. That is why people, such as yourself, rarely defend the latter claim, preferring the safer ground of the former, which almost no one is disputing anyway.
What is worse then the apparent fraud committed by those involved have been the declarations of other climate scientists tangentially involved, or not at all, that appear to condone or defend their colleagues fraudulent activities as necessary in the circumstances.
dover_beach
30 Jan 10 at 11:58 am