Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 20:
Line 20: + +
→Freedom of information: Only people who oppose freedom would do this ...
The Freedom of Information Act, however, explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOI request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university. A complaint has been made to the British information commissioner.<ref name=3things>Iain Murray. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/ Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate], ''Pajamas Media'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}
The Freedom of Information Act, however, explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOI request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university. A complaint has been made to the British information commissioner.<ref name=3things>Iain Murray. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate/ Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate], ''Pajamas Media'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}
[[Climategate]] is certainly very complex so I'm sure as time goes on we'll learn more, but I'm going to assume (Illegally obtained or not) the hacked emails can be used as evidence of fact, as I believe the data has been verified as authentic. If I'm missing something, please let me know. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)
[[Climategate]] is certainly very complex so I'm sure as time goes on we'll learn more, but I'm going to assume (Illegally obtained or not) the hacked emails can be used as evidence of fact, as I believe the data has been verified as authentic. If I'm missing something, please let me know. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:The reason this is significant, as I've been saying all along at Wikipedia, is "cherry-picking data" that supports your ideas and suppressing reports from scientists who challenge your findings is anti-scientific. Science thrives when every new idea is subjected to scrutiny by the entire scientific community; it is only when an idea has survived repeated challenges from skeptics that we can say it has stood the test of time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:26, 30 January 2010 (EST)
== Article Image ==
== Article Image ==