Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[RandFan]

There was no court order, the FOI request was rejected, nor was any data destroyed.

Entirely beside the point. It gets very frustrating when people keep arguing the same point. What did happen had the appearance of improprioty at the very least. Conspiring to commit a crime (assuming it was a crime) is illegal in some places.

I'm not familier with UK laws but here FOI requests are not court orders, but rather are handled by a records officer. (civil servants who review and process the requests.)

I'm not familiar with UK laws either. Please forgive my ignorance. I'm guessing I should know, where is "here"? I thought this took place in the UK.

I'm from America and the Freedom of Information Act is law.

I'm curious though, what the hell good is FOI if anyone can thumb their nose at it? What a giant waste of time. What's the point?

 

[RandFan]

have you read the we-mail in question? The tone is very much that of "bitching".

I don't know what we-mail is. I did read an email that talked bout destroying data. Are you suggesting it was in jest?

 

[RandFan]

From: Michael Mann <[email protected]>
To: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: [email protected]

<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.

I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: [email protected]

talk to you later,

mike

Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> 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

 

[GreyICE]

There is no court supportable evidence either way. Never has been.

The warmers have sued the deniers, but the cases were all dropped.

Hey, watch this:

The moon is made of cheese
Gravity doesn't exist
The world is flat
Evolution is a lie, the world is 6,000 years old
Electrical fields are damaging our childrens' brains
Wearing cotton makes you dislike Jazz music
If everyone jumped up and down at once, it could break the continental plate
There are alligators in the NYC sewers


See how you can't sue me for any of these statements? Not a bit of slander or libel in any of it.

 

[lomiller]

Entirely beside the point.

How is it beside the point that no violation of the FOI laws were ever committed?

I'm from America and the Freedom of Information Act is law.

As it is here. That does not mean it’s administered by a judge, however.

I'm curious though, what the hell good is FOI if anyone can thumb their nose at it? What a giant waste of time. What's the point?

The FOI request was found to be not valid, so how is not releasing information in response to a rejected request “thumbing your nose”?

 

[RandFan]

How is it beside the point that no violation of the FOI laws were ever committed?

For the reasons I've stated. If you are just going to ignore my points then why bother to even respond to me?

As it is here.

Where the hell is "here"? I don't know where "here" is. Can you give me a bit of context?

That does not mean it’s administered by a judge, however.

I've no idea whatsoever what this has to do with anything. Does your law have penalties? Can someone go to jail for failing to comply? Did this take place in the UK? Of what value is a law that is only enforceable by a judge? Dumb ****ing law.

The FOI request was found to be not valid, so how is not releasing information in response to a rejected request “thumbing your nose”?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? It would be damn easy to thumb your nose at it. Monitor the courts and when an FOI is applied for conspire to destroy the data.

If the FOI can't force someone to comply then WHAT THE HELL GOOD IS IT?

Sheesh.

 

[RandFan]

When both side start acting like asshats I have to wonder.

Can someone, anyone, just address the points made without silly nonsense? Why does it have to be like pulling teeth?

 

[GreyICE]

When both side start acting like asshats I have to wonder.

Can someone, anyone, just address the points made without silly nonsense? Why does it have to be like pulling teeth?

Go to the threads in the Sciences forum. Since this is the social issues forum, it's going to be about the politics of global warming, which is inevitably about 95% 'silly nonsense.'

 

[RandFan]

Go to the threads in the Sciences forum. Since this is the social issues forum, it's going to be about the politics of global warming, which is inevitably about 95% 'silly nonsense.'

Thanks and perhaps I will but I'm not really asking about science.

 

[GreyICE]

Thanks and perhaps I will but I'm not really asking about science.

Oh, well in that case 'Climategate' is 100% silly nonsense. So you're asking 'why is silly nonsense so silly?'

 

[RandFan]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited portion of post that was quote and response to modded posts.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." --Robert Cardinal Bellarmine

GI: Climategate is 100% silly.
RF: Why?
GI: It just is.

I'd like to think there are no more Bellarmines but we both know better. Well, at least I do.

 

[GreyICE]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited quote of modded post.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." --Robert Cardinal Bellarmine

GI: Climategate is 100% silly.
RF: Why?
GI: It just is.

I'd like to think there are no more Bellarmines but we both know better. Well, at least I do.

Okay, let me nuance my position a bit more:

Virtually every thing that has been said on a blog or in a forum as a result of these leaked emails has been absurdist in the entire.

My favorite part is the concept that the ethics of the researchers in a hypothetical situation where the data did not fit the predictions of current climate change theory somehow reflects on the truth of that theory despite the fact the actual data supported current theory.

At this point, suggesting our insight will somehow be more interesting or informed than the people doing the investigating is silly. Your demand that people defend or condemn while we still lack full information is silly. The fact that nearly half the posts in this thread read "This user is on your Ignore List." and only one person posting in this thread is, well that's silly too.

So yes, I will continue to treat your requests with all the gravity they deserve, which mostly involves pounding a bird on a counter and insisting that it's an ex-Parrot. This started as a polite warning that I probably wouldn't be alone in that, but you plowed on...

90% of the 'damning' things said in those emails were completely innocuous.

 

[BenBurch]

An FOI for something folks no longer working there destroyed in the 1980s when they moved the offices is not going to be filled. Is this really that hard to understand?

And an FOI for IP held under license that was destroyed per license when it had been used is not going to be filled, is that hard to understand?

 

[a_unique_person]

How is it clear? Blindly asserting something doesn't make it true.

How is discusing the delition of data in the face of an FOI "bitching".

Hey, it might be but please don't just assert things. I'm not here pushing an agenda. I want to understand. If your position is correct and I'm willing to accept that it very well might be then you could explain why what you are stating is correct.

The directory they were taken from was called FOIA.

 

[RandFan]

90% of the 'damning' things said in those emails were completely innocuous.

RF: And the other 10%?

 

[RandFan]

The directory they were taken from was called FOIA.

For quick deletion when necassary?

Hey, I don't know but this doesn't answer any of my questions.

I can accept that this is from the lunitic fringe and it's largely nonesense. But there is an email that is very troublesome and I'd like to understand it. That's all. Nothing sinister.

Look, if there are no answers and we need to wait for the investigation then by god just say so. I support Obama. I support Cap and Trade. I've no agenda. Just be up front.

 

[RandFan]

An FOI for something folks no longer working there destroyed in the 1980s when they moved the offices is not going to be filled. Is this really that hard to understand?

Is it so damn hard to tell me? Do you have a source?

And an FOI for IP held under license that was destroyed per license when it had been used is not going to be filled, is that hard to understand?

No, it's not so hard to understand. If this is true then why the talk of destroying data and coordinated deletion of emails?

Why the "is that so hard to understand" rhetoric? Why didn't you ask me first if I knew this information? I've been asking questions and all I get is shut up and sit down.

Don't give me grief for not knowing if others won't answer. I've been to a number of blogs, on both sides and I can find scant little info. So I came here in the hopes of getting answers and all I get is BS and grief.

WHY?

I've seen nothing, NOTHING that would change my current stance on AGW and Cap and Trade. I'm there. Just stop telling me to be a good little soldier and to stop asking questions.

Jeez.

 

[lomiller]

For the reasons I've stated. If you are just going to ignore my points then why bother to even respond to me?

Please point out where you gave an actual reason.

I've no idea whatsoever what this has to do with anything. Does your law have penalties? Can someone go to jail for failing to comply? Did this take place in the UK? Of what value is a law that is only enforceable by a judge? Dumb ****ing law.

Plenty of laws don’t have penalties, many others do not have penalties that would never go before a judge. All moot since no law was broken.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? It would be damn easy to thumb your nose at it. Monitor the courts and when an FOI is applied for conspire to destroy the data.

What the hell is “conspiracy to destroy data”? do you have any evidence that any jurisdiction in the world has such law that makes it illegal to destroy data that can legally be destroyed?

 

[RandFan]

Please point out where you gave an actual reason.

See post #114.

Plenty of laws don’t have penalties, many others do not have penalties that would never go before a judge. All moot since no law was broken.

I don't know enough to say if it had or had not. I don't know the applicable laws. But if destroying data could prevent you from being prosecuted then what good is any law that deals with information.

And you still refuse to answer my question. What good is FOI if there are no penalties.

What the hell is “conspiracy to destroy data”? do you have any evidence that any jurisdiction in the world has such law that makes it illegal to destroy data that can legally be destroyed?

In America an FOI would make it illegal to destroy data. it's called obstruction of justice and people go to jail for it all of the time.

You mean in your country (are you really scared to say where you are from?) no one has to comply with discovery in a legal matter? Really? I think in the UK they are so obliged.

What is your basis to say that it was legal to destroy the data? I don't know that is a fact.

 

[lomiller]

No, it's not so hard to understand. If this is true then why the talk of destroying data and coordinated deletion of emails?

Record keeping 101 all documents receive a destruction schedule, some schedules may specify “keep indefinitely”, others may receive a schedule that says “keep for x number of years” while most working documents receive a schedule that says destroy when no longer needed.

If this is being rigorously enforced it can be taken as far as "all e-mail must be either deleted of moved to a document management system within x number of days"