Written evidence submitted by Mr &
Mrs L Black (UEA Reviews 06)
During The Science and Technology Select Committee
inquiry 31 March 2010 regarding; The disclosure of climate data
from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Professor Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia said:
The CRU had only three staff to deal with FOI
and develop science [Climate] "| May I point out, Chairman,
that this is a very small unit. There are three fulltime members
of academic staff within it |" ie only three staff were in
a position to oversee, what effectively will result in the expenditure
of public funds in the billions, in implementing Governmental
Public Policy.
Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf
Q92 Professor Acton's response to Chairman:
"May I point out, Chairman, that this is
a very small unit. There are three fulltime members of academic
staff within it and the manpower involved in exactly what has
just been described is actually very considerable."
Richard Thomas CBE, former Information Commissioner
also said:
There were only 60 or so FOI requests which in
his experience "| does not strike me as being an absolutely
huge number|" ie it was NOT excessive [and in any case it
appears they binned them anyway or spent more time trying to avoid
fulfilling them than it actually would have taken to answer them
properly!
Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf
Q68 Ian Stewart to Mr. Thomas
"I am also bound to say that I think a figure
of around 60 has been mentioned. That does not strike me as being
an absolutely huge number. We estimated in the first four or five
years of the legislation about half a million requests across
all public authorities were being made. Undoubtedly, it has been
quite popular legislation, it has been heavily used, not just
by the media and by researchers and campaigners, also by the general
public, and so we would be reluctant to label a request as vexatious.
I do recall one example—I think it involved Birmingham City
Council—where an individual made about 200 requests about
a particular allotment site in Birmingham and how that was being
developed."
THE SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
SELECT COMMITTEE
MEETING 8 SEPTEMBER
2010
The intention in this communication is not to
dwell on the selection and suitability of Lord Oxburgh as the
head of the inquiry [that has been widely questioned] ie his impartiality
and other interests. However his responses to the panels' questions
were equivocal, incomplete and somewhat obfuscated; quiet frankly
we were astounded. It concerns us that Lord Oxburgh [in the Science
and Technology Select Committee meeting 8th Sep] drew attention
to the FOI requests as being an issue for the CRU [to deal with]
and asked the panel Chairman to revisit FOI requests in respect
of scientific establishments in the future ["|I do think
that there are very interesting questions to be asked about the
interface between the Freedom of Information Act and scientific
research|" UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/uc444-i/uc44401.htm]
In respect of the CRU's difficulties in complying
with them/or not as the case has been shown, it appears he wanted
to throw another red herring back into the cooking pot!
We wish to draw attention here [rather than
repeat the reasons for the FOIA] to Heather Brooke's excellent
book, which we read last week, "The Silent State"
isbn 978-0-434-02026-3. It demonstrates her attempts to garner
information from the UK establishment ie MP's expenses and other
revelations, via the use of FOI's [and other disclosures including
the massaging of publicly funded data, statistics and PR Spin,
etc.]. We also suggest it should be on the list of essential reading
for all publicly funded employees; MPs included.
We do not wish to spell out the [obvious] reasons
for this provision [FOIA—see your own document http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf
Richard Thomas CBE Memorandum submitted by Richard Thomas CBE
(CRU 53) Freedom of Information Aspects].
Funded research is paid for by our taxes and
as such no public body should be able to hide behind exemptions
unless it can be guaranteed that divulging it affects NATIONAL
SECURITY or some other such criteria listed as relevant.
We accept some of this data was not owned by the
CRU but it can be clearly seen it was using these FOI denials
to ensure others were unable to do a "like for like"
comparison using the same methodologies with the same raw data.
How can it be that the CRU, with only three
employees had to deal with "The Science" and only
60 FOI's yet the whole of Governmental Public Policy,
costing potentially billions, depended on the results and performance
of only three fulltime staff [who were also not as statistically
competent as they ought to have been given it's significance]?
How can we be in a situation where:
1. Only three staff were in a position to oversee,
what effectively will result in the egregious use of public funds
in the billions, in implementing [or improperly supporting!] Governmental
Public Policy within the UK [and elsewhere]?
2. How can it be, that the analysis of this data
has not been overseen or performed by a recognised statistical
body, team or organisation?
3. At each and every public pronouncement of
the launch of these inquiries in to this matter [climategate,
or during such inquiries] each of those heading or speaking on
its/their behalf, imply or state the science is being dealt with
else where. We have seen no such confirmation of the science [of
the CRU's data cleaning/analysis input and output] as a result
of these inquires [or 3rd party peer review] and furthermore given
that:
[source: http://www.ecowho.com/articles/42/Climategate,_what_is_going_on?.html
which is a "warmist" web site]
Quote:
— CRU takes raw data as measured from various
sources, processes and `cleans' it and makes it available for
monthly updated download on their FTP site for other climate change
academics to use. So, if CRU is found to be in error, then all
these dependent academics must be considered in error as well.
— CRU processed data is used to calibrate
satellite proxy temperature readings, so if CRU is found to be
in error, then all usage of said calibrated satellite proxy temperature
data readings will be in error also.
— CRU data is one of four key data sets
used by the majority of climate change researchers—2 ground
based, 2 satellite data based (to which said calibrations have
been applied)—in essence up to 75% of the climate data in
use is at risk of being shown to be invalid if CRU are found to
be in error.
These 4 data sets have been used by the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as core data in their
research and conclusions—so if the CRU is found to be in
error, the IPCC conclusions are also likely to be in error.
Un-Quote
It is of great concern that we are currently
dependant on the CRU's output of temperature data, which it has
"processed", consequently justifying the expenditure
of vast amounts of public funds to support Governmental
Public Policy [assuming the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming]
based on such doubtful and questionable data!
The reasons for the implementation of sound
ecological and environmental mechanisms and policies we accept.
We look forward to sound science producing
findings that will allow policy makers to put in place such mechanisms
so as to preserve what we have now and for future generations.
Climate Change, we now believe, is not
due to human CO2 emissions [CO2 follows temperature rise it does
not precede it] but by Solar radiation and Planetary cycles [Milankovitch
Theory—see footnote]. The Carbon Emission Ponzi Scheme/Tax
Gravy Train, or put more diplomatically Carbon Trading Derivatives
Scheme, is an inappropriate method of financing the changes as
the public are being misled by chicanery which is only going to
line the pockets further of the miscreants that lead to the recent
collapse of the financial industry.
The CRU has been the complier of data on which
governmental "public policy" is based and subsequently
on which these financial schemes are also based. The CRU was under
investigation for violation of The Freedom of Information Act
2000, fraud and other possible violations of British and International
law and indeed may have been found guilty of breaking the law
had not a technicality prevented prosecution, causing further
doubts about their methods and ethics.
Instead we should be validating the science
and if necessary spending these funds on adapting to
Climate Change, which has existed for millennia.
It seems there is a "Lobby" element
operating in the scientific community along with the finance industry,
NGOs and other advocacy groups directing public policy on Climate
Change which is totally unacceptable.
Mr & Mrs L Black
Note: Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovic_cycles
Milankovitch Theory describes
the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon
its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician
Milutin Milankovic, who worked on it during First World War internment.
Milankovic mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity,
axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic
patterns on Earth.
| 
