Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You're still defending their deletion practices?
What deletion practices?
You mean deleting private and confidential emails related to IPCC business? Nothing to defend, they can delete them. The FOI request was refused, it
would never be allowed for such information.
Here they admit that even the computer code is subject to FOIA, as I do think I recall you claiming it wouldnt be:
Actually is their interpretation. So would be fairer to say they thought the code would be covered. However, note they also talk about IP rights. Even
in universities work is still the intellectual property of the author. Just because a researcher is employed by a university doesn't mean that all
their work is the university's property. It depends.
Moreover, the idea in science is not to duplicate others research. There is little value in that. The idea is to replicate
. When the likes of
McIntyre want to contribute to science, they're free to make the effort - although, he seems incapable of producing anything original. He's the
self-appointed blog-based climate 'auditor', lol.
Suuuure, oooookay, he can "HIDE" behind certain obligations. But you argue as if there wasnt even intent to keep his numbers and methods
secret. And then you talk as if you know what they actually deleted. Breath-taking...
Not breathtaking at all. Why should any researchers want to submit themselves to the whims of a self-appointed Joe McCarthy?
Anti-science would be an ongoing concerted effort to stiffle the scientific method, on matters that just so happens to involve policy that begs
for a global government / tax.
What you (and others) are engaged in is ideologically-motivated anti-science. Which currently includes harassment and smearing/swiftboating of a group
of researchers that are producing science that fails to conform to your ideological wishful-thinking.
After Jones faces criminal charges and has to give up the millions in personal wealth he's made during this...
You are joking? lol
Millions in personal wealth?
Millions as in money?
Get a clue.
The notion he'll face any criminal charges is further wishful-thinking. He's done little wrong. The hacker, however...
Do you see the REAL significance of this because it is absolutely fatal to the credibility of anything CRU has produced.
It's actually the notes of a programmer trying to upgrade a database for one set of data (HAD CRU-TS). This dataset is now freely available. Isn't
that what you wanted? A coherent source of free and open data?
And you whine about that as well?
What we have here is a documented THREE year effort by a CRU programmer, who had access to all the data, access to all the code, access to all
the people who developed the code and the models and still HE could still NOT duplicate CRU’s OWN results.
Nope, sorry. It wasn't to do with 'all the code, all the data blah blah'.
Tell me what studies are affected by this database? It was an effort by one chap to combine disparate databases for a new CRU-TS database. Looks like
he had hell.
No, not really. Using other people's databases is a pain in the ass.
And for the likes of jdub (back on ignore, you're boring me again), here's the exemptions to the FOI in the UK, as you obviously have issues
clicking links and understanding simple information (due to T&Cs, what I have to hide is my disdain for you - perhaps submit an FOI to ATS, I'm sure
the three amigos will appreciate it).
FOI act 2000 UK
21.Information accessible to applicant by other means.
22.Information intended for future publication.
23.Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.
25.Certificates under ss. 23 and 24: supplementary provisions.
28.Relations within the United Kingdom.
30.Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities.
32.Court records, etc.
35.Formulation of government policy, etc.
36.Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs.
37.Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours.
38.Health and safety.
41.Information provided in confidence.
42.Legal professional privilege.
44.Prohibitions on disclosure.
And all FOI requests to the CRU by McIntyre and his cronies have been rightly rejected.
As he was told, 98% of the data he wants is freely available, the other 2% is not available due to prohibitions on disclosure (national met services
for commercial reasons). The idea is for him to use that data and replicate
. But when they try that, we get schoolboy BS blog-'science',
Even when the vast majority of the data and even software is available (see NASA-GISS), we still have groups harassing groups of climate scientists
(see NASA-GISS/Gavin Schmidt and the CEI).
This is just political BS - propaganda and swiftboating. All that's left when you have no scientific case. Which is were you are. Embrace those of
your ilk - creationists.