Will there be FOI prosecutions at CRU?

This certainly seems to be a possibility based on the story in the Telegraph.

Comments

[boballab]

"Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States".

As an example you mean Gavin Schmidt that works for NASA at their GISS department? The Gavin Schmidt that run RealClimate with Michael 'upside down' Mann? The Gavin Schmidt mentioned in your emails that is basically the AGW version of Igor from Frankensein? Of course he's independent!

Or how about Kevin Trenberth that works for NCAR and thinks its a travesty that reality doesn't pay attention to the AGW crowd in your emails. Obviously another impeccable witness!

Here is a clue, fire the lawyer you have right now he is giving you bad advice. Pointing towards an accomplice as someone that can verify you didn't do it and your both caught in the act doesn't make you look innocent, it just makes you look more stupid.

[Viv Evans]

There ought to be ore than one prosecution. Look at this:

"Climate change data dumped
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
...
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

Link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

[Robinson]

"We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data."

Still spinning. "value-added", "quality controlled". These are all marketing terms ;).

[Anon]

Bish have you ever considered the when, why, and who, motives behind AGW?

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-23/pdf/50-55_723.pdf

Scary stuff!

[Bill Sticker]

Monckton has been one of those calling for prosecutions in an interview on the corbettreport.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPDc5aE-LU&feature=player_embedded

Ironic really, when you think about how often 'believers' were calling for 'deniers' to be jailed.

[LarryR]

Based on what's been released there have been FOI violations. Retratining FOI officers to block responding, deleting emails, planning to delete data, misresponding to requests.

But first, the existing records need more investigation. We've been handed a fiew pieces of the puzzle. FOI requests should try to retrieve further details of suspicious actions. I'm leaving British FOI actions to those on the east side of the pond. I'm considering whether to use U.S. FOIA on items of interest to me.

[Paul Biggs]

Let's hope someone does get prosecuted over FOI. Jones still can't tell it straight though - the CRU, NCDC, abd GISS data sets have a 90 to 95% overlap according to Pielke sr - so not exactly 'independent.'

[Ed Snack]

Not a chance, the FOI people were completely in bed with these guys in the first place. Also, as the UK government has no interest in prosecuting these guys, it ain't going to happen.

[cosmic]

Ed,

Not only does the government have no interest in seeing them prosecuted, they have an interest in not seeing them prosecuted.

What's worse, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition look to be fully bought into the scam and they won't touch it with a bargepole either. It looks as if they see themselves as a change of shift rather than a change of government.