Hacked emails suggest desire to withhold data from publiic scrutiny

Excerpts from the emails:



"... Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond - advice they got from the Information Commissioner ...



The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the sceptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.



-------------------------------------------------------------------



"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."



-------------------------------------------------------------------



"... Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them.



The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to inquiries within 20 days? - ours does !"



Source: New Zealand Herald


CONTEXT(Help)
-
Anthropogenic Climate Change »Anthropogenic Climate Change
▲
Human impact on the Earth's climate? »Human impact on the Earth's climate?
▲
Case for significant anthropogenic forcing remains unclear »Case for significant anthropogenic forcing remains unclear
▲
IPCC process, science and modelling are flawed »IPCC process, science and modelling are flawed
▲
IPCC process isn't wholly reliable »IPCC process isn't wholly reliable
▲
Hacked emails raise questions about flaws in the scientific process »Hacked emails raise questions about flaws in the scientific process
■
Hacked emails suggest desire to withhold data from publiic scrutiny
●
No records deleted or altered with intent of avoding disclosure »No records deleted or altered with intent of avoding disclosure
●
Over 95% of raw station data accessible via GHCN for several years »Over 95% of raw station data accessible via GHCN for several years
●
Underlying data is not CRU's to disclose »Underlying data is not CRU's to disclose
+Comments (0)
+Citations (1)
+About