IPCC declares itself immune to FOI requests

Posted: December 16, 2011 by tallbloke in Incompetence, Philosophy, Politics

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/14/ipcc-declares-itself-above-the-law.html

Maybe with the events of the last couple of days, they are getting worried that on the most tenuous of pretexts, (like non-compliance with legitimate FOI requests for example), law enforcement officers might march into their address and remove computers and records…

…unless we’re not all equal before the law after all?

Comments
  1. Nick Stokes says:

    No-one has been able to say what that declaration was or who made it.

  2. Otter says:

    I, for one, hope these actions against you cause a cascade effect which will tsunami them! Or, at the very least, get Climategate 3.0 moving sooner, as some of those involved in the assault upon you, may well have emails in that .zip file.

  3. Joe's World says:

    TB,

    Interesting how the umbrella of the UN falls over to cover their tracks.
    Generating an even greater power of protection for whatever they may deem.

    Even though Canada did NOT sign this new declaration by the UN, the pressure is on. No doubt veiled threats to comply or be put under some sort of sanctions.

  4. Brian H says:

    JW;
    Now that he’s seen the huge wave of support domestically for his move, Harper is NOT going to bazooka his foot by backtracking.

  5. Latimer Alder says:

    Hie yourselves to Jeff Id’s

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/wg1-more-chapters-linked/

    where you can feast upon the latest draft of WG1 AR5. Which has got all sorts of confidentiality stuff all over it.

    Either we have got some very good hackers (hurrah!) or somebody in the wacky fantasy world of IPCC-land has still got a shred of integrity.

    I wonder who that might have been?

  6. Brian H says:

    They’re all dated April 15, 2011. I guess it took 8 months to purge them of potential heresies and inconvenient data links.

  7. adolfogiurfa says:

    UN: the empire of the MULE

  8. david says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    December 16, 2011 at 10:31 am
    No-one has been able to say what that declaration was or who made it.
    )))))))))))))

    Nick, this is because apparently the list of what they (the IPCC) expect to keep clear of FOI, is itself a part of that list. Below see the comment aluding to this which Richard Bettes agrees with.

    Richard Tol

    As to FoI, the “confidentiality guidance” has a list of things that will be made public and says that any and all other material will remain confidential. The TSU indicated that this was done on behalf of the “governments”

    R.B. responds…
    OK so nothing new then, I thought I’d missed some new statement. This is just what the IPCC would like to happen, but there is no actual power there. What actually happens following an FOI / EIR request is down to the public body to which the request is sent – and that body will take into account the various factors such as what the partner (in this case the IPCC) has requested and the wider public interest – and the decision can then be challenged by appeal to higher levels in government right up to the information commissioner. The IPCC has no influence other than making its views known.

    Dec 14, 2011 at 8:40 PM | Richard Betts

    My comment…
    RT and RB I think we need more infromation on this statement which you both accept…” As to FoI, the “confidetiality guidance” has a list of things that will be made public and says that any and all other material will remain confidential. The TSU indicated that this was done on behalf of the “governments”

    Is the “confidentiality guidance” (whatever this is) “list of things” available for the public so that we may judge for ourselves if it is reasonable? What is the TSU and what did they mean by this being done on behalf of “goverments”? This indicates that someone representing disparate goverments decided, in communication with the IPCC, what was to be available to FOI laws, and what was not. This needs to be thourghly vetted. Thanks

    Richard Tol responded to my comment here, followed by my last comment, pointing out the irony and hypocracy of Tallblokes situation…

    Richard Tol says:
    December 15, 2011 at 12:22 am
    @David
    “It appears that the IPCC’s confidentiality guidance document covers itself and cannot be disclosed. The IPCC intends to publish the first- and second-order drafts that are sent for expert and government review, the comments on those drafts, and the responses to those comments.

    There is a lot more material, including the selection and allocation of authors, the outline of the report, and the zeroth-order draft and comments, that the IPCC will try to keep off limits.”

    Thank you Richard, and you are quite helpfull. Your comment on what is not on “the list” is very cogent, but the operative word hear is it “appears’, and both you and Richard B have a very difficult time being percise, but apparently there is a percise list which we, the people of the world world who are or may be affected by every policy recommendation this unelected group of Blackbeards make, cannot see what this list consists of !! Yet some private “Tallbloke in Britain was certainly not allowed to make a list for the police on what to provide them when they stormed into his private home and took his personal property, despite the fact that he recieves zero Govt funds and makes zero recommendations to change how governments around the world operate. And some posters here think this is fine and a boring matter, nothing to see here, just move along.

  9. Slightly off topic

    Tallbloke and Pointman need our help and support

    Pointman has published an excellent blog about Tallbloke’s police ‘visitors’.

    Here:-
    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/skeptic-blogger-raided-by-the-police-because-he-was-sent-a-link-to-the-climategate-2-release/

    This is a MUST READ to understand Climategate 2 risks unfolding around us.

    Be prepared — Be safe

    motm

  10. Nick Stokes says:

    David,
    So where’s the “declaration”? And who made it?

  11. Joe's World says:

    TB,

    The downfall with consensus science is that if one scientist is incorrect, then ALL are incorrect.
    It the nature of the monster of consensus and of being like minded and trained to be like minded.

  12. Paul in Sweden says:

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if FOIA makes future announcements initially on ‘team’ sites.

  13. hengistmcstone says:

    So where’s the “declaration”? And who made it?

    The original authors of this non-story, Richard Tol and Andrew Montford, have fallen silent on that question. If Tol does enlighten us there’s still nothing to it. Information relating to the IPCC can be disclosed under national FOI laws, but there is no international FOI law no matter how much advocates positioned as skeptics like to pretend there is.

  14. david says:

    hengistmcstone says:
    December 17, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    So where’s the “declaration”? And who made it?

    The original authors of this non-story, Richard Tol and Andrew Montford, have fallen silent on that question. If Tol does enlighten us there’s still nothing to it. Information relating to the IPCC can be disclosed under national FOI laws, but there is no international FOI law no matter how much advocates positioned as skeptics like to pretend there is.
    ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Nice strawman…”Information relating to the IPCC can be disclosed under national FOI laws, but there is no international FOI law no matter how much advocates positioned as skeptics like to pretend there is.” No skeptics stated this. Rather what was stated was that individual scientist working within the IPCC are subject to their respective nations FOI laws.

    As for the “declaration” did you not read the posts I copied just above this? Apparently not, so to save you tiome and lay it all out here you go.

    Richard Tol stated “As to FoI, the “confidentiality guidance” has a list of things that will be made public and says that any and all other material will remain confidential. The TSU indicated that this was done on behalf of the “governments”

    Richard Bettes, by no means a skeptic, agreed that this was correct…”OK so nothing new then, I thought I’d missed some new statement. This is just what the IPCC would like to happen, but there is no actual power there…”

    I responded with some questions…”Is the “confidentiality guidance” (whatever this is) “list of things” available for the public so that we may judge for ourselves if it is reasonable? What is the TSU (some division of the IPCC I presume) and what did they mean by this being done on behalf of “goverments”? This indicates that someone representing disparate goverments decided, in communication with the IPCC, what was to be available to FOI laws, and what was not. This needs to be thourghly vetted. Thanks

    To which Richard Tol responded…”@David
    “It appears that the IPCC’s confidentiality guidance document covers itself and cannot be disclosed. The IPCC intends to publish the first- and second-order drafts that are sent for expert and government review, the comments on those drafts, and the responses to those comments.
    There is a lot more material, including the selection and allocation of authors, the outline of the report, and the zeroth-order draft and comments, that the IPCC will try to keep off limits.”

    So as you and Nick can see the IPCC is not listing what can and cannot be kept confedential, but has given hints. You and Nick would both like to say nothing to see here, move along. That is not a rational position. There is plenty of evidence withing the latesest e-mail release that the IPCC has given the impression to other scientist that their work is protected from FOI demands, as well as the fact that the “team” does not like anyone to see their work. See below…

    2440 Jones:

    I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
    and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
    process

    1577 Jones:

    [FOI, temperature data]
    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
    get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
    Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
    station data.

    2094 Briffa:

    UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
    anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
    task.

    1473 McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

    As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
    communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
    that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
    we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)

  15. hengistmcstone says:

    It’s very simple David. A declaration would be the tangible product of anything that the IPCC declares. Nobody is able to point to any declaration pursuant to this headline. Ergo the IPCC has not declared itself above the law or immune to FOI requests. It’s just another case of advocates positioned as skeptics way overstating their case.

  16. david says:

    @ heningistmcstone, I notice you do not admit to your clear strawman. As to a declaration those are your words. What Richard Tol said was this…“As to FoI, the “confidentiality guidance” has a list of things that will be made public and says that any and all other material will remain confidential. The TSU indicated that this was done on behalf of the “governments”

    and this…“It appears that the IPCC’s confidentiality guidance document covers itself and cannot be disclosed. The IPCC intends to publish the first- and second-order drafts that are sent for expert and government review, the comments on those drafts, and the responses to those comments.

    Clearly Phil Jones (who has worked extensively with the IPCC for years)recieved the same impression as Richard Tol and Richard Bettes from the IPCC in stating this..2440 Jones: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”

    Nope, nothing to see here, move along, (Sarc)

  17. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Now if I were involved in crimes against humanity, I would not want to be forced to publish my activities!! pg