Difference between revisions of "Talk:Climategate"
(→Freedom of information: new section) |
(→Freedom of information: reply) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Just a brief point: The data in question was deleted in the 1980s according to the article referenced on the main page <ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece</ref>. This was about two decades before the Freedom of Information Act came into force in the UK and so the act and the fine of £5000 which you mention are not relevant to the discarded data. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 07:34, 1 December 2009 (EST) | Just a brief point: The data in question was deleted in the 1980s according to the article referenced on the main page <ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece</ref>. This was about two decades before the Freedom of Information Act came into force in the UK and so the act and the fine of £5000 which you mention are not relevant to the discarded data. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 07:34, 1 December 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | :I'll look into that part some more, you bring up an interesting point. But after reading [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txt this email] dated Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008, Phil Jones said this: | ||
| + | {{cquote|Mike, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? | ||
| + | Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. | ||
| + | Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't | ||
| + | have his new email address. | ||
| + | We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. | ||
| + | I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! | ||
| + | Cheers | ||
| + | Phil}} | ||
| + | Iain Murray from ''Pajamas Media'' explained the significance, here: | ||
| + | {{cquote|The context in the subject header is clearly the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI), while AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is most important to know here is that, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance in the UK, “at least one FOI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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) | ||
Revision as of 17:42, December 1, 2009
I do not have much, but I hope that someone will expand this article, as this whole thing has blown my mind about the reality of deceitful myths.
Freedom of information
Just a brief point: The data in question was deleted in the 1980s according to the article referenced on the main page [1]. This was about two decades before the Freedom of Information Act came into force in the UK and so the act and the fine of £5000 which you mention are not relevant to the discarded data. DWiggins 07:34, 1 December 2009 (EST)
- I'll look into that part some more, you bring up an interesting point. But after reading this email dated Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008, Phil Jones said this:
| “ | Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil |
” |
Iain Murray from Pajamas Media explained the significance, here:
| “ | The context in the subject header is clearly the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI), while AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is most important to know here is that, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance in the UK, “at least one FOI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.”
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.[2] |
” |
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. DerekE 12:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)
- ↑ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
- ↑ Iain Murray. Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate, Pajamas Media, November 24, 2009.