This is a big deal. How many millions of dollars have been wasted because of the falsification of the data?
Prior to becoming Man o' Law I was a geologist. (Man o' Rock?)
My Masters Thesis examined the Triassic Era Lockatong Formation in the Newark basin in an area comprising the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Border along the Delaware River, north of Trenton.
The formation is comprised of thousands of alternating cycles of rocks. Each rock cycle, I established, began during a wetter climate starting with a wet lake environment and ending in a desert environment. Then a new cycle began with a wetter lake environment again which ended in a desert environment.
Each weather cycle, and there are thousands of them, clearly demonstrate that the weather patterns shift and change over time. Think the last Ice Age ending approximately 10,000 years ago.
In these larger cycles are smaller, shorter climatic cycles, like the Little Ice Age, which lasted from sometime in the 15th Century until the 19th Century. So does Mankind have much effect on these cycles? Probably not too much.
Do these cycles have much effect on Mankind? Absolutely and therein lies the danger of what these fellows did.
By falsely shouting "Wolf" will we be more skeptical in the future when change is coming?
I think we need to prosecute these fellows and hopefully restore some ethics to Science.
Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
Ben Webster, Environmental Editor, Jonathan Leake
TimesOnline
Professor Phil Jones, the unit’s director, stood down while an inquiry took place. The ICO’s decision could make it difficult for him to resume his post.
Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.
In one e-mail, Professor Jones asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He also told a colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to ignore information requests under the act from people linked to a website run by climate sceptics.
A spokesman for the ICO said: “The legislation prevents us from taking any action but from looking at the emails it’s clear to us a breach has occurred.” Breaches of the act are punishable by an unlimited fine.
The complaint to the ICO was made by David Holland, a retired engineer from Northampton. He had been seeking information to support his theory that the unit broke the IPCC’s rules to discredit sceptic scientists.
In a statement, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner at the ICO, said: “The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information.”
He added: “The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information.”
Mr Holland said: “There is an apparent Catch-22 here. The prosecution has to be initiated within six months but you have to exhaust the university’s complaints procedure before the commission will look at your complaint. That process can take longer than six months.”
The university said: “The way freedom of information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell’s independent review. The findings will be made public and we will act as appropriate on its recommendations."
