Skip to main content

View Diary: The SwiftHack (ClimateGate) Scandal: What You Need to Know (279 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They have their own FOIA in the UK (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    daisycolorado

    Very similar to our own. Some of the emails included references to it.

    Now we can use their reasoning, and it's a good one: that they felt climate change was too important of an issue to let hacks manipulate and misrepresent the data.

    But to deny that anything happened in regard to Freedom of Information requests does not fall into the realm of a reality-based community.

    The odor of my apathy just might be true - In Flames "Suburban Me"

    by member of the msm on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 03:19:19 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And the same applies (5+ / 0-)

      Unless you are working specifically for a government agency, you are still not under the jurisdiction of FOIA, either here or in the UK.  If the work was based on a grant, it is independent research, with the lab an independent contractor working within the department at that particular university.

      If I gathered the data on a grant, I own it.  If I publish, then through peer-review I will most likely have to show it simply to prove the validity of the data and the conclusions.  But not every granted study publishes, and not every experiment gets positive data.  (Positive data being something that either proves or disproves the experiment's objectives.)

      •  Peer Review (2+ / 5-)
        Recommended by:
        dizzzave, Mother Shipper
        Hidden by:
        kalmoth, SomeStones, Dcoronata, xysea, ozsea1

        or the lack therein is part of the scandal here. A number of years ago Phil Jones refused to release his source data to Australian scientist Warwick Hughes. Jones’ "excuse"? He stated, "[w]e have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

        In the emails, Jones says he will delete his data before turning it over to the skeptics under a FOIA request.  And when such a request did come, he said he could not turn over the data in question because it had been accidentally deleted. That is not only bad science, its fraud.

        •  Not fraud. (11+ / 0-)

          Again, unless he's working for a government agency ALL DATA is his.

          I've mentioned this several times already.

          Many scientists would rather destroy data they've worked for than give it up for someone else.  It is their work, and they own it.

          Peer review exists when a paper is published.  If you don't want to be reviewed, you don't get published.  If you don't get published, you won't get grants so if you want to get more grants, you publish.

          From this and several other comments you've made, I think you haven't got a clue how this works.

          •  I think you don't have a clue (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mimi9

            about UK FoIA and public funding of universities and research. All of this was subject to FoI in the UK, and they were trying to avoid it, at the edge of legality. End of story. You might think that's wrong but that's our law.

            Brussels Delenda Est

            by Morus on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:09:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This from CRU proves you wrong. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RunawayRose, pontechango

              "The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data."

              If the data came from outside of the UK, even your wonderful laws can't touch them.

              •  The FoIA covers data held by UK bodies (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mimi9

                It doesn't discriminate between data from the UK and data from elsewhere: if the data is held by a UK body, it is subject (unless it meets an exclusion like national security).

                The CRU might have made those deals, but English law doesn't recognise them - it says they are still subject, and the CRU is in breach if it doesn't disclose them.

                The data isn't subject to English law, but the CRU is. Sorry.

                Brussels Delenda Est

                by Morus on Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 06:34:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Everything, even emails, are subject to FOIA (0+ / 0-)

        at East Anglia.  That is their policy.

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

        by Skeptical Bastard on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:04:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You are categorically wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mimi9

        This was subject to UK FoIA. This is not 'private' data - it was subject to UK FoIA. I'm sorry, but there's no other way around this.

        Brussels Delenda Est

        by Morus on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:08:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  See above post re: CRU and foreign data. (0+ / 0-)

          If the data wasn't derived in the UK, or from UK funded sources, how the fuck is it the property of the UK?

          If it isn't public, it must be private!

          •  Everything "held" by the CRU is subject (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mimi9

            Irrespective of where it came from, it is held by the CRU, and the CRU is publicly funded, so they would need to find a specific exclusion (21b or 41b are the most common, but I don't think they apply here).

            Brussels Delenda Est

            by Morus on Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 06:35:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The emails also include (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose, yaque

      the FOI official telling them the request was frivolous.  

      Then it was denied.  

      Then the appeal was denied.  

      No conspiracy there.
      .

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site