As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.

Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.” The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.

The president of Spain’s renewable energy association — along with a Communist Party affiliated trade federation — decried the paper’s lead author as being unpatriotic.

The former wrote in Spain’s leading paper, El Mundo, slamming the research paper. However, he did not critique the paper itself — he agreed with its conclusion. He was furious only that the study was publicized. By revealing the truth about Spain’s increasingly mythologized “green jobs” and renewable energy experience, the revealed study threatened the prospects for Spain’s companies to be bailed out by the U.S. repeating these mistakes.

Incidentally, this became a common refrain. After the Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program.

Soon, Denmark produced a study (“Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark“) through the think-tank CEPOS. This paper also revealed tremendous costs, and that Obama’s claim about Denmark’s “renewables” experience was also steeped in mythology.

The response from windmill advocates in Denmark was similar: such studies threaten Danish industry by reducing the chances that the U.S. will serve as the hoped-for massive new market to make inefficient energy sources profitable for their foreign manufacturers (Danish Radio TV News, Thursday, February 25, 2010).

Back in the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association — the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants — also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper.

Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment — written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado.

There is much, much more to this Horner’s article.  Read the whole thing here.

Firstly, ACPO is the statutory consultee for the British Government coordinating national police operations and major investigations. My concern, shared by many others, is that despite the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) affirming that crimes had been committed, no charges were being brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because the statutory time limit had expired.

But this was a disingenuous under-reporting of the facts because criminal charges could still be brought against Professor Phil Jones, chief climate scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRO) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), because he confessed to destroying crucial climate data and the leaked emails appear to suggest a conspiracy among a clique of climate scientists to commit data fraud.

As I have shown in an earlier article, criminal charges may still be brought against Jones and his alleged co-conspirators because under the Fraud Act (2006), conspiracy to commit fraud is not subject to such a statutory time limit.

Question: is it true or false that ACPO, a private limited company with no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, has investments in carbon trading stocks and thus has a personal conflict of interest in investigating ‘Climategate’ thoroughly – a scandal involving alleged global climate data fraud that concomitantly would impact the value of such stocks?

Answer: Firstly, I can confirm that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not have any investment or financial interest of any kind in the trade of carbon stocks.

On a more general point, ACPO became a company limited by guarantee in 1997. This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government while enabling the Association to fulfill its functions, including employ staff, enter into contracts for accommodation and allow for transparency in publishing accounts. All funds to ACPO are employed in the public interest.

As a company limited by guarantee, you correctly point out ACPO has no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. However you may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice has said it intends that ACPO will be added to the list of bodies subject to the Act, an intention which we welcome.

Question: Can you confirm or deny that officers under your sway are following up the recent Information Commissioner’s (ICO) admission that government officials working at the University of East Anglia did, indeed, unlawfully break the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), such offences not being subject to any statute of limitations (see below) so that you are now centering your investigations, not solely on ‘hacking’ of emails, but the illegal conduct and possible data fraud of international climate scientists involving many millions in taxpayer grants?

Answer: On your second request, Norfolk Constabulary has confirmed it is investigating a data breach at the UEA and how the circulation of private e-mails became public, with the assistance of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which is providing advice on Data Protection and FOI. This investigation is led by Norfolk Constabulary and the National Domestic Extremism Team has provided assistance. NDET’s role is to assist police forces: it does not have a remit to carry out investigations independently.

Question: Would you care to comment why the NDET, a non-specialist fraud unit are investigating what some legal commentators are saying is likely to be the greatest science racketeering fraud of all time, a matter more properly dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office?

Answer: NDET has provided assistance as a national police unit with relevant expertise and good background knowledge of the groups involved in climate change issues. Computer forensic expertise is one aspect of that assistance. The Serious Fraud Office has clear case criteria which are a matter for that body.

Question: Would you please relay to us your interpretation of the fraud laws so that our readership may be in no doubt that you recognise that while there may exist a continuum of fraudulent data manipulation, such crimes cannot yet be time barred under the rules of ‘compounded offences’ so that charges may still be lain under the Fraud Act (2006) and ‘conspiracy to corrupt,’ contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Answer: It would be for Norfolk Constabulary to make any comment, if appropriate, on potential outcomes to this investigation. Under legislation, charging decisions are made by the Crown Prosecution Service.

To be frank, no one can reasonably accuse ACPO of foot dragging on this issue. It is simply the duty of ACPO to advise the government that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as per the recommendations of the Roskill Report (1988) ought to be conducting this case, not Norfolk Police nor NDET.

The SFO is under the sway of that political appointee, the Attorney-General who in turn is accountable to Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. The British Government knows only too well that since the Criminal Justice Act 1987, the Serious Fraud Office is mandated responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of suspected cases of serious or complex fraud where £1 million or more is involved or in cases of multi-national jurisdiction (i.e. the Climategate scandal).

Prime Minister Brown knows the buck stops with him on this but he is so far having an easy ride and not being exposed for his own complicity in this scam. While the mainstream media is yet to pick up on this it is left to the blogosphere to pursue the matter. I will now be writing to the Attorney General, the Director of the SFO and the Chief Constable of Norfolk Police and I urge other British taxpayers who also feel ripped off to help keep the pressure up.

We must ensure that self-serving politicians like Gordon Brown cannot bury Climategate by, as I suspect, unjustly under-employing the powers of the police merely because we are in the run up to a general election this Spring.

—————————————–
Acknowledgment: Gareth Bowden of ACPO

If you're a UK taxpayer, you paid for this illustration.

The UK government’s Climate Challenge Fund was established in large part to increase pro-warming public opinion. We wanted to find out exactly what their published goals are but their website (www.climatechallenge.gov.uk) seems to be no longer active. We found this quote of its goals on one of the sites it funded: “educate, excite and inspire others so that we can start working together to tackle climate change.” In others words, government propaganda bullshit.

The good news is it failed in its goals; the bad news is that it cost taxpayers £9million between 2006 and 2008. A Whitehall report found that the initiatives were almost entirely directed to those who already believe in climate change, and in addition, the sensationalism put people off.

The Daily Mail reports:

Schemes included a £40,000 DVD in which schoolchildren explained that in ten years everyone will have to wear sunglasses all the time, because the sun will be shining more.

A tent set up in shopping centres and labelled an ‘experiential climate dome’ was subsidised by Whitehall to the tune of nearly £400,000; a computer game cost £47 every time it was played; and a series of ‘challenging pub quizzes’ about climate change cost more than £85,000.

Large grants went to councils, schools and youth groups for ‘ attitude modification’ programmes and to assure the public that man-made global warming is an established scientific fact.

And £200,000 went to Oxford University to ‘take climate change into the community’.

Of course, this information was not freely let out by government officials. It had to be unearthed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance through Freedom of Information requests. Matthew Sinclair, the group’s research director, said:

“The Government has clearly crossed the line from public information to propaganda on climate change.

“Many of the Climate Challenge Fund projects are utterly bonkers and misleading, and come with a huge price tag.

“Despite a fortune having been spent on these projects, the fund has failed even on its own spuripeopleous terms. It is infuriating for taxpayers to see their money squandered on attempts to scare and indoctrinate the public.”

We found one example of a funded project on the internet. It’s a game developed for teachers and students, called Operation Climate Control. Take a look, we think it should have been called Operation Mind Control.

Source: Daily Mail

The Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the FOIA. The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth –- whose department has responsibility for the Met Office. Professor John Mitchell was joint chief fabricator of the absurd headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report: that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years. A claim totally at odds with the evidence presented in the IPCC’s First Report of 1990.

Documents obtained by The Daily Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a coordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.

British climatologists have been at the heart of allegations of climate date fraud for several months since the Climategate scandal first broke. After it was announced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) that although the CRU had broken the law by refusing to comply with dozens of FOIA requests over several years, head scientist, Phil Jones was branded a criminal by climate skeptics around the world.

Although Mitchell may also be beyond the scope of prosecutions under the FOIA laws, he may still be liable for charges of conspiracy to commit fraud as per the Fraud Act (2006) which is not subject to a time limit. Although his CRU co-conspirator Jones was wrongly reported to be beyond the reach of the law, according to the ICO (but not this article’s author), both he and Mitchell could be in court for conspiring to defraud taxpayers. Jones this weekend publicly anounced he had received death threats and contemplated thoughts of suicide because of the scandal.

Anyone who follows the highly-acclaimed Canadian climate analyst Steve McIntyre’s blog knows he did an excellent job in helping the climate science community identify the provenance of a graphic shown here, that was produced in 1990 by the propagandists of the junk science of man made global warming, the IPCC.

McIntryre examined the IPCC First Report that acknowledged the great significance of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the climatic record. But the MWP was all but written out of the climate history come the time of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Report as it would undermine the influence of human-produced carbon dioxide as a driver of climate being that the historical record suggests the MWP was as warm, if not warmer than modern temperatures.

The Daily Mail reports:

The Met Office’s first response to Mr Holland was a claim that Prof Mitchell’s records had been ‘deleted’ from its computers. Later, officials admitted they did exist after all, but could not be disclosed because they were ‘personal’, and had nothing to do with the professor’s Met Office job. Finally, they conceded that this too was misleading because Prof Mitchell had been paid by the Met Office for his IPCC work and had received Government expenses to travel to IPCC meetings.

The Met Office had even boasted of his role in a Press release when the report first came out. But disclosure, they added, was still rejected on the grounds it would ‘inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank provision of views’.

The MWP controversy has been building up a head of steam since early drafts of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Report were fiercely contested by official IPCC reviewers, who cited other scientific papers stating that the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.

Mitchell’s buddies have rallied to his aid to help break the FOIA laws in a repeat of the Phil Jones scandal. Some of the FOIA requests were made by the same person who has made requests to Phil Jones at CRU. He is David Holland, an electrical engineer familiar with advanced statistics who has written several papers questioning orthodox thinking on global warming.

But most climate commentators expect another public backlash as was seen after Climategate now that British public opinion shows less than 25% believe man is causing climate change. The fallout of the Climategate scandal is believed to be the cause of the fall in support for the theory of man made global warming. Leaked emails from the CRU exposed the myth of the so called ‘settled’ climate science that relied heavily on perversion of the peer-review process, conspiracy, subterfuge and law-breaking. Mitchell will now be girding his loins for the kind of stiff media kicking that assailed Phil Jones.

Professor Mitchell also approved the inclusion in the 2007 IPCC report of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a steep 20th Century rise.

By the time the 2007 report was being written, the graph had been heavily criticised by climate sceptics who had shown it minimised the ‘medieval warm period’ around 1000AD, when the Vikings established farming settlements in Greenland. Reviewers had cited other credible peer-reviewed scientific papers stating that the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate. But the final version, approved by Prof Mitchell, the relevant chapter’s review editor, swept aside all such concerns.

The Information Commissioner’s Office and the police have yet to comment on these latest revelations.

Hey deniers: Don't you know who were are!

Yesterday we reported that Penn State University claimed they are exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act under Pennsylvania’s ‘Right To Know Law.’ U.S. constitutional law advisers have reliably informed climategate.com that Penn State’s latest scam to hide wrongdoing by their climatologist, Michael Mann, is contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

This means that any federal law—including Freedom of Information laws – trumps any conflicting state law.

Under U..S. constitutional law it turns out that a legal technicality known as the ‘Preemption Doctrine’ forbids any shabby attempt by institutions at state level from undermining the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws. According to the Supremacy Clause, anyone filing a federal FOIA request at the university will have the full weight of the federal government behind them in rooting for evidence in cracking the great climate con nut.

It turns out that the state of Pennsylvania is no stranger to getting its hand slapped by the feds for trying to circumvent the rights of citizens. Federal ‘occupation of the field’ stamped itself on Pennsylvanians in the case of Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956),

The Supremacy Clause states that the:

Constitution and the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

We hope that Penn State University will now stop its shenanigans in trying to ‘hide the decline’ of the career and credibility of mendacious Michael Mann and let the world get on with putting climate criminals behind bars.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I don’t know if this is common knowledge amongst you good folk over there, but this is breaking news to me.

Climate skeptic Ron Armstrong of Hoquiam, Washington has today learned from Penn State University that they are exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act and Pennsylvania’ s Right To Know Law.

With Ron’s permission, I have uploaded the email response to his request at

http://johncostella.webs.com/penn-state-foia-response.txt

and the attachment, which is the important document, at

http://johncostella.webs.com/penn-state-foia-loopholes.pdf

Note: if I’ve missed an attribution link anywhere, sorry, we were working off a quick email and wanted to get this out. Thanks Dr. Costella!

Costella’s statements will be seen as an embarrassing slight to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. On Monday, James Delingpole at the Telegraph exposed King for blowing off a lot of hot air about some hunch that nasty Russian or American spies hacked into the UEA’s Internet server. The bottom line is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has had to come clean and admit publicly that criminal conduct has taken place within the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, although no one in authority appears to want to do anything about it.

Dr. Costella, in his analysis, “Climategate Analysis,” has now published what is widely regarded as the best review of all 1,000+ emails and other documents contained in a 62MB upload to a Russian Internet server on November 19, 2009.

I asked John to comment on whether he believed it was the work of a hacker or an inside whistleblower that broke this most sensational scandal. He replied, “My only speculation on this comes from the following email,” and then directed me to read email 1228922050 of December 9, 2008 in which U.S. climatologist Ben Santer catches onto UEA climatologist, Phil Jones’s strategy of arguing that a greater number of requests implies lower credibility and validity, rather than the opposite:

Santer:

“I had a quick question for you: What is the total number of F[reedom] O[f] I[nformation (FOI)] A[ct] requests that you’ve received from Steven McIntyre?”

Jones:

“[I h]aven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at [the] U[niversity of] E[ast] A[nglia]. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. … I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails—unless this was “normal” deleting to keep emails manageable!”

Costella comments:

“Unless Jones volunteered this information to their FOI officer, this intriguing email may indicate that the FOI officer—who will generally have system-level rights to read all emails, as part of their job—may have been monitoring Jones‘s emails, including the one above where he admitted deleting emails. This may lead to the identity of the Climategate whistle-blower, for those who continue to doubt their existence.”

Relatedly, Dr. Costella also confirmed that contrary to widespread misunderstanding, none of the emails were redacted: “The ZIP file I downloaded on December 6, 2009 has the emails intact. The files on my webpage are not redacted either.”

The continued to speculate on the confusion of this issue:

“I think that when some people decided to post them all online, they wrote a program to redact all email addresses to avoid them being picked up by spammers. But by the time I saw them, there were so many unredacted copies on the Internet that I knew it was useless to do that.”

Pointedly, Costella informed me that he found the full email addresses are “extremely useful” in deciphering the affiliations of the alleged climate conspirators. “They are also important in that they show that these people were (almost always) using their OFFICIAL work email, not personal email,” he said.

John left me with a few sobering words that shows that here is a man who thinks with the cool, objective head of a scientist:

“Opinions on likely hackers are mere speculation, no matter how well-respected or honorable the speculator may be… it has been over two months now. Regardless of how the emails were leaked, they have been acknowledged as genuine, and provide evidence of astounding fraud. Investigation and potential prosecution or protection of the leaker or hacker is a separate issue, of no direct relevance to the issue of fraud.”

In this article we have dealt with facts, not the spin that warmists like Sir David King are spouting. Conclusions may only properly be drawn from evidence plainly presented. We have seen very little or any of that from the apologists of climate crime.

Dr. Costella has made a compelling factually-based case that Phil Jones’ unlawful deletion of emails was, he admits, well known to his FOI Officer. Jones was instructed to desist in breaking the law by that Officer. He continued to refuse to comply with the officer’s request. Thereafter, a vast amount of data (62MB) contained within a directory entitled ‘FOIA’ was uploaded onto the Internet. Absent any evidence to prove a hack we may thus infer a conscientious whistleblower, probably the FOI Officer, leaked the emails.”

As I reported on Friday, the actions of the ICO makes a mockery of the whole judicial process. The ICO’s statement seriously prejudices the outcome of any criminal charges brought against Jones, chief climatologist at the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), for offences as per the FOIA.

The Telegraph’s Booker reports:

The Commission is thus impaled on a hook of its own devising. By admitting that serious offences were committed, it is now legally obliged to bring charges. And if these were brought under the 1977 Criminal Law Act, alleging that the offences amounted to a conspiracy to defy the law, there is no time limit anyway.

Furthermore, in a statement, Professor Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of UEA commented:

“The ICO’s opinion that we had breached the terms of Section 77 is a source of grave concern to the university as we would always seek to comply with the terms of the Act.”

But not so fast! In effect, the ICO has labeled Jones “guilty” of the offence so that it is now highly improbable that any court may lawfully convict him on tainted FOIA charges anyway. Jones’s lawyers will surely argue that the authorities have abused their man’s human rights. Perhaps they “forgot” every defendant is innocent till proven guilty. But in the light of other facts, as outlined below, I fear that fudging this case was the intention all along. But either way, ICO Commissioner Christopher Graham’s head must roll.

As we reported on Climategate.com, this bungle was no more than a technicality because a case for fraud against Jones may be brought using other sections of the criminal law. For example, under the Fraud Act (2006) ‘Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information’ it is an offence to commit fraud by:

failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information.

However, today I can reveal the plot thickens because there is further evidence suggesting willful nonfeasance or malfeasance by government officials. Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, said in an emailed press release:

“Norfolk Police are investigating how private emails have become public.”

No mention of climate data fraud there. In fact we may infer that there is no police investigations into the alleged climate date fraud of Professor Jones at all because such cases involving international fraud involving sums greater than £1 million Pounds (US $1.6m) are required to be investigated by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO). And, where are they?

The SFO was established in 1988 after the Roskill Report recommended that this specialist duty be taken away from normal police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service. The report came in the wake of several failed prosecutions, as we have now seen perpetrated by the ICO. The Attorney-General’s office has been in direct charge of the SFO since the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act (1987).

So if the SFO is not on climate professor, Phil Jones’s case then who is?

What is even more galling, in light of the above facts, is that the criminal investigation into the CRU emails is not actually being carried out by Norfolk Police but by the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET), a non-accountable secret police group under the sway of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (see our article), a private company run by British chief police officers who happen to have considerable pension fund investments in carbon credits! Anyone else see a conflict of interest here?

Based on the facts as known, the British Government may thus be accused of either deliberately or negligently conducting the investigation into the Climategate Scandal. As regular followers of this story will know, the Climategate controversy first hit the headlines when 1,000+ emails were uploaded to a Russian Internet server on November 19, 2009 causing a sensation among scientific bloggers and climate skeptics. The mainstream media has persisted in claiming the emails were hacked, despite the proof that the emails were contained within a directory marked FOIA (Freedom of Information) and were thus more plausibly leaked by a concerned whistleblower.”

In the wake of the furor over Climategate, the floodgates have opened with a succession of further climate calamities to embarrass advocates of pro-green global warming science. These latest news stories are slowly finding their way into a reticent mainstream media who are grudgingly starting to report climate fraud in fresh scandals such as Glaciergate, Amazongate and Pachaurigate. Although, these too, are only fully exposed on the internet.

It is no coincidence that after the ICO announced there would be no criminal charges against Jones, an exuberant Prince Charles paid a special visit to the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to publicly praise Jones and his discredited “hockey team” for all their good work in “hiding the decline” in global temperatures.
His Royal Wretchedness said,

“Well done all of you. Many, many congratulations on your work. I wish you great success in the future. Don’t get downhearted by these little blips here and there!”

See him on video here (UK only).

Just think about this for one moment – the future king of England endorsing crime! This blatant show of eco-fascist hubris is to be condemned as another nail in the credibility coffin of the prince who talks to plants.

As a supplement to my legal analysis for the prosecution against disgraced Professor Phil Jones, and based on the thorough scientific analysis of over 1,000+ leaked emails made by acclaimed Australian physicist, Dr. John Costella, I have made a further analysis aided by my legal associates. We have been able to substantiate further the case against the prevaricating professor from the University of Unthruths.

Dr. Costella adds further commentary to one email that I consciously avoided including, for legal reasons, in my previous article on the prosecution evidence against Professor Jones. This is the now famous “trick” that Jones used to hide the decline and which John Costella addresses thus:

“Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:

Jones: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. ” [November 16, 1999: email 0942777075]

I defer to the expert commentary of Costella:

“Those thirty-three words summarize the hoax so magnificently succinctly that the Nobel Committee should consider retrieving their Peace Prize from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, and re-issuing it as a Literature Prize to Phil Jones.

This email was sent less than two months after the one analyzed above [not cited]. Clearly, Mike Mann’s problems with Keith Briffa’s data—that it didn’t agree with the real temperature measurements from 1961 onwards—had by this time spread to the data for the other “temperature proxies”, albeit only from 1981 onwards. Jones reveals that Mann did not address this problem by making honest note of it in the paper that he and his co-authors published in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real temperature data into the graphs, for the past twenty or forty years as required.

That Mann did so would, in and of itself, disqualify him and all of his research from any future consideration in the annals of science; but here we have the other leader of the field, Phil Jones, bragging that he admired the “trick” so much that he adopted it himself. Moreover, his email was sent to the major players who dominated this field. It is the silence of these conspirators over the intervening decade that has forever damned the field of “climate science” to a state of irreversible ignominy.”

Costella speaks authoritatively as a scientist. He is not an attorney, nor does he have legal training, but we get the drift of his meaning in the context of scientific ethics.

As you will note, the email of the ‘hiding the decline’ trick is dated November 16, 1999. This is ordinarily outside the time limit for a prosecution. But a nimble-minded prosecutor would argue that, as Jones sought to conceal such evidence by lies and deceit such pernicious conscious intent keeps such evidence alive so that, despite being over a decade old, it is still admissible under the rules of “compounded offences.”

Thus Jones may be further liable here for conspiracy to corrupt, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Whether these scientists conspired with third parties (e.g.funding institutions) to fraudulently acquire taxpayer grant funding is moot here because there are no admissions to such in the leaked emails evidence. Such issues may best be addressed under the rules of privity as stipulated under Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

This may give us some extra latitude by permitting that if the victim (taxpayer) has suffered of any financial or other prejudice there of, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her. Moreover, we may treat Professor Jones’ emails as full confessions under the law. UK’s eminent Lord of Appeal, Lord Steyn, in R v Hayter [2005] UKHL 6 (3 February 2005) at paragraph 25 stated,

“a confession may be admitted not only as evidence against its maker but also as evidence against a co-accused implicated thereby.”

So that Jones’ admission about Michael Mann’s trick to “hide the decline” implicates those other climatologists who received the aforementioned email, i.e. Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn.

As an illustration, the case against Phil Jones and others under the Fraud Act (2006) is evinced by “Fraud by false representation (Section 2)” that summarizes what a prosecutor would be seeking to prove. To attain a guilty verdict against the Defendant the following five elements must be fulfilled so that Professor Jones:

(1.) made
(2.) a false representation
(3.) dishonestly
(4.) knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
(5.) with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

Below is a graph to show an example of the gain” made by Jones and his university chums by their dishonest practice.

Note the cool £6.6 million in 2002 followed by a lush £2.7million in 2006. So science crime DOES pay – and all with a special thank you from chuckling Charlie!

Bear in mind that UEA and Jones’s gain is a loss to other scientific institutions who did not resort to “tricks” to secure government grants (again, this is best addressed under privity as stipulated under Contracts (Rights of Third Parties Act 1999). Since we broke this story last, my legal colleagues and I have yet to hear or read of ANY defence, let alone a plausible one, to my proposed prosecution argument. We believe it is now essential that the SFO now takes over this investigation. It is contrary to the principles of Labour’s much-hyped transparency in freedom of information that a select police group is inappropriately operating outside its remit whilst the best of British fraud specialists are stood idly by.

If the authorities continue to bungle and blather then I fear the only conclusion that may reasonably be drawn is that the British Government is engaged in a cover up; a shabby grand conspiracy to evade political embarrassment rather than to honourably uphold their elected duty — namely, to best serve the interests of taxpayers.

Until recently I was enjoying correspondence (via my MP) with the Climate Minister, Joan Ruddock, in which I urged her to apply due diligence.

Strangely the Minister hasn’t replied to me lately. But my global warming skeptic friends and I are undeterred by such subterfuge, dithering and blind panic. We are steadfastly resolved to bust the greatest science scam of all time.

Gordon Brown’s largess with our taxes has brought this country to near bankruptcy and this must be rectified. For example, he has already wastefully donated at least £1.5 billion to a foreign fund to combat the effects of an arguable disaster caused by arguable climate change.

Britain is then committing itself to higher charges under the The Emission Trading Scheme above the £3 billion per annum at 2008 figures, while the rest of the European Union is set to pay 100 billion Euros per year. Uncle Sam is set to dip his hand into US taxpayers’ pockets for a cool $22 billion every year.

More bad news for eco-fascism is coming, methinks. Watch this space!

Yesterday the London Times broke the latest news on the fate of disgraced British climatologist Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia (UEA). Jones breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming. The Times reports that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.

What the Times and the rest of the media are overlooking is that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), not the ICO, is responsible for announcing the results of the police investigation into the Climategate scandal. The ICO is merely a non-departmental public body which reports directly to Parliament, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and deals solely with data protection, FOIA regulations, privacy, electronic communications regulations and environmental regulations.

What is not being intelligently reported is that Jones is still liable as lead conspirator in the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and may face prosecution under the United Kingdom Fraud Act (2006). If convicted of the offense of fraud by either false representation, failing to disclose information or fraud by abuse of his position, he stands liable to a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

In this article I shall demonstrate that the fuss over the FOIA infringement, although in itself succeeding in achieving no conviction, does demonstrate that the ICO has acted improperly and may have prejudiced the outcome of any prosecution Jones may face for far more serious offenses for false representation (section 2) and failing to disclose information (section 3) under the Fraud Act (2006).

I strongly urge interested readers to study the article shown here, written by Norman Baird, for a fuller explanation of the scope of the Fraud Act (2006) and the implications in the Professor Jones scandal.

Although the offense of fraud may be committed in three ways, we shall only need to apply two in finding reasonable grounds to bring a prosecution in this case. All three forms of the offense require proof of dishonesty and an intention (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. “Gain” and “loss” are limited to gains or losses in terms of money or other property.

The forms of fraud directly relating to Phil Jones are:

Fraud by false representation (section 2)

A fraudulent representation is an assertion which is untrue or misleading and which the person making it knows is, or might be, untrue or misleading. ( s2(2) ).Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. There are no restrictions or limitations in the way in which a representation is communicated. It may be written or spoken and may be transmitted by email or by way of website.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3)

This form of the offense applies where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information that he is under a legal duty to disclose. The ICO admits Jones is guilty of failing to disclose climate data. The question whether a legal duty exists is a matter of the general law. A legal duty may arise by virtue of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust between two or more parties).

The CRU Email Evidence

From a full examination of excerpts from leaked CRU emails cited below, it is readily demonstrable that the police and Crown Prosecution Service currently possess sufficient evidence to charge Phil Jones under both sections 2 & 3 of the Fraud Act (2006). I shall cite liberally from Jones’ own email admissions, in conjunction with also citing liberally the much-acclaimed analysis of all the leaked UEA emails by Australian physicist, John Costella. Dr. Costella’s excellent study is available here.

I have used my own judgment to assess which of Jones’ emails are the most damning. Bear in mind that a defendant incriminates himself by any admission he may make.

On January 16, 2004, in leaked CRU email 1074277559 exchange Jones frantically urges Penn State University climatologist, Michael Mann, to delete data:

Subject: Climatic Change needs your advice—YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!

Mike,

This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading—please! I’m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all available!! Pot calling the kettle black—Christian doesn’t make his methods available. … I told Steve separately, and told him to get more advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal department.

PLEASE DELETE—just for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

Dr. John Costella’s commentary on the above is, “Jones’s blind panic—in private to Mann—speaks volumes. He is so scared of the ramifications that he even asks that Mann destroy the email immediately. Are these the actions of scientists with nothing to hide?”

In the leaked emails of February 4, 2004, email 1076083097 exchange, we read that a large number of climate con collaborators are discussing ways to avoid providing independent Canadian climate analyst, Steve McIntyre, with enough of the computer programs to actually check their results. Linda Mearns, Senior Scientist at the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, writes:

My point about the computer programs is still that “providing the programs” can be interpreted a lot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all the programs. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows someone to see how the programming was done. And I do think that is a far sight easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn’t faced with garish headlines about “refusal to provide programs”. I think it is harder to come up with a garish headline about “refusal to provide completely documented programs with appropriate instructions files and hand-holding for running it.

Mearns’ argument is effectively this: if we are forced to provide the computer programs, then let’s break them up into the smallest possible pieces, so that McIntyre can see roughly what we have done, but would have an almost impossible task putting the pieces back together again so that it could be used—sort of a “Humpty Dumpty.”

Phil Jones realizes that this won’t fool many: if they had done the science properly, then the computer programs and supporting documentation would be readily available for anyone to use, without any further work.

Jones then replies:

So now it seems that we’re separating “providing the programs” from “running the programs.”

I can’t see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Mike Mann complies, I suspect there will need to be several sessions of interaction to explain how to run the programs, which neither side will be very keen on.

Jones is savvy enough to understand that providing un-runnable programs will lead to an immediate request or demand for assistance in actually getting them to run.

Jones then admits that, even with possession of the programs and the data, a lot of “fiddling” is needed to get to their claimed results:

As I said before, I know that running the programs will involve lots of combinations (for different time periods with different temperature proxies).

Jones further realizes that validating their programs would require validating their mathematical “number-crunching” programs—often shared between different programs, and hence called “library routines”:

Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the mathematical approach that we use, that there will be library routines. We don’t want McIntyre (and McKitrick) to come out and say that he can’t get it to work after a few days.

Jones continues:

So, it is far from simple. I’m still against the computer programs being given out. Mike has made the data available. That is all they should need. The method of calculations is detailed in the original paper … and also in several other papers Mike has written. In other words, the skeptics have a description of what was done which should be enough.

Then this bombshell:

As an aside, Mike Mann is now using a different method from the paper of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes of 1998.

So even if McIntyre and colleagues follow the method described in the 1998 paper, they still won’t obtain agreement with what Mann is now doing! Could there be any clearer argument for providing the exact computer programs and methodology used for each and every published paper? Jones apparently can’t fathom the ridiculousness of his own words.

He continues:

It might appear that they want the programs to check whether their version works properly. If this is the case, then there are issues of Intellectual Property Rights. So, if they get the programs, how do we stop them using it for anything other than this review?

God forbid that any other scientists should be given assistance in researching this issue of critical importance to humanity! Jones’s treatment of their data and research as “private property”, for them to exploit and profit from—to the exclusion of all other scientists—is obnoxious and unlawful, particularly as it is paid for by taxpayers and subject to full FOIA disclosure!

Phil Jones replies to an email from another climatologist, Van Ommen, on February 9, 2004 in email 1076336623 exchange copying in Mike Mann:

Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about the Antarctic data (yet), nor about any of the data used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 Geophysical Research Letters one with Mike. I suspect (hope) that he won’t. I had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here in Climatic Research Unit. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met(eorological) Services through the Global Tele-communications Service (GTS) or through the Global Climate Observing System.

We here start to learn about the tricks that Jones and colleagues have used to thwart attempts to get access to the dodgy data that their published claims are based on. In this case, Jones is trying to argue that data provided by individuals does not need to be provided for independent scrutiny—another intent to conceal fraud.

Jones continues:

Emails have also been sent to some other paleoclimatology people asking for data sets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got a request, for example. Here, they have also been in contact with some of Keith’s Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get data that we’ve used. In the Russian case, issues relate to the Russian (Rashit Hantemirov) having a paper out with the same data that Keith used ….The data are different for two reasons. One reason is that Keith used (a mathematical method on the data); and, secondly, Rashit has added some data since Keith got the data a couple of years ago.

Jones is here giving yet more reasons why the original data should be made available. So what will he do?

I’ll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do the same, but we’ll expect another publication in the nearish future.

This is clearly the guilty mind legal component, or ‘mens rea’ – intent to cover the fraud by ‘sitting tight’ – refusing to comply with FOIA disclosure – and implies Jones conspired to do so with Michael Mann.

So not only will they ignore all requests for the data—and hide behind dubious loopholes to do so—but they are moreover planning to continue publishing papers based on all this “private” (fraudulent) data, adjusted by their own private mathematical methods!

On January 21, 2005 Jones corresponds again in email 1106338806 exchange.

Phil Jones is confident that it won’t be a problem in continuing to decline FOIA requests:

On the Freedom Of Information Act, there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do regarding programs or data. Like all things in Britain, we will only find out when the first person or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the Freedom Of Information Act in Britain. I don’t think the University of East Anglia really knows what’s involved.

However, he also starts the process of finding loopholes in the legislation with fellow climate scientist conspirator, Tom Wigley:

As you’re no longer an employee, I would use this argument if anything comes along.

Tom Wigley replies:

Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by the University of East Anglia so they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer programs would be covered by the Freedom Of Information Act. My concern was if Sarah is/was still employed by the University of East Anglia. I guess she could claim that she had only written one tenth of the programs, and therefore only release every tenth line of the programs.

Another interesting attempt to conspire to fraudulently wrangle a loophole, albeit unlikely to succeed. Phil Jones replies, refining the loophole even further:

As for the Freedom Of Information Act, Sarah isn’t technically employed by the University of East Anglia and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.

Not that she wouldn’t be covered by the Act: merely that she would be paid by a different University!

Jones continues:

I wouldn’t worry about the computer programs. If the Freedom Of Information Act does ever get used by anyone, there is also Intellectual Property Rights to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at the University of East Anglia who has been given a post to deal with them.

On February 2, 2005 in email 1107454306 exchange Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann:

Just sent loads of … data to Scott Rutherford. Make sure he documents everything better this time!

So it isn’t until 2005 that they decide it is time to document what they are doing?

And don’t leave stuff lying around on anonymous download sites—you never know who is trawling them. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after the Climatic Research Unit … data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.

Bingo! Proof of intention (mens rea) to commit a criminal destruction of evidence–all we need now is proof of the destruction/loss of data the (actus reus) to have the two requisite components of a crime ( the guilty state of mind and the actual commission of the crime).

Jones then discusses (conspires) to find other way to unlawfully subvert the FOIA law:

We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind.

Again, “hide behind” reveals intent to conceal the original fraud of falsification of climate data.

Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it—he thought people could ask him for his computer programs. He has retired officially from the University of East Anglia so he can hide behind that….Intellectual Property Rights should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at the University of East Anglia who’ll say we must adhere to the Freedom of Information Act!

Again, proof Jones will “argue” against compliance betraying his guilty frame of mind, in seeking to pervert the law — further deepening his admissions to commit a crime.

On February 21, 2005 in email 1109021312 exchange Phil Jones writes to colleagues, Mike Mann, Ray Badley, and Malcolm Hughes, regarding news reports that Mann will be forced to release his data:

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! …

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! ….PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the Climatic Research Unit … temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the United Kingdom has a Freedom of Information Act!

Again, we have Jones admitting to coercion of others to join him in and conspire to conceal the legal duty he has as CRU leader and hide his climate data fraud.

On July 5, 2005 Jones makes further damning admissions in email 1120593115 exchange where Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy:

This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

Again, Jones’s ability to concisely summarize the key facets of this climate temperature fraud is remarkable. While Jones is admitting to the truth in private, he has CRU making public statements that are knowingly fraudulent under the terms of the Fraud Act. Can you imagine how intimidated the more junior scientists would be?

On August 4, 2005 email 1123163394 exchange Jones now makes a remarkable comment, about something that is elementary to even high-school science experiments:

There is an issue coming up in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Every graph needs uncertainty bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.

In other words, he is only concerned that they give the appearance of estimating the uncertainties in their predictions, rather than actually getting those (subtle and difficult) vital calculations right –- an obvious deceitful act and thus a further offence under the UK Fraud Act — fraud by false representation (Section 2)

On January 5, 2007, the email 1168022320 exchange from Phil Jones to many:

I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can definitively determine where Figure 7.1c from the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I’d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s.

Wonderful! Fake graphs presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report—but only disclose that once the skeptics take note of it? More fraud by false representation (see: Fraud Act, Section 2).

Ascertaining Phil Jones’ Guilt

The UK Crown Prosecution Service may fairly construe in their case that Professor Jones et al. continued in their concealment (the act of the offense) throughout the course of those FOIA applications. Thus, this constitutes an offense of continuous unlawful conduct that would, in turn constitute what is known in English criminal law as a “compound allegation.”

The continuing act will continue for as long as the defendant sets about the business of committing or covering up the crime. Jones was covering up his criminal acts right up to November 19, 2009. His concealing of his crimes until that date keeps all such offenses “live” because the act of covering up the crime is, itself, a crime.

The Fraud Act (2006)

The Fraud Act (2006) tells us we must ask the following questions to ascertain the measure of the defendant’s guilt:

“whether a defendant’s behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.”

Subsection (1)(b) requires that the person must make the representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another. The gain or loss does not actually have to take place. The same requirement applies to conduct criminalised by sections 3 and 4.

Subsection (2) defines the meaning of “false” in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of “representation”. A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website.

Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information

Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of “legal duty” is explained in the Law Commission’s Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:

“7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute [ e.g. obligation to release data as per a Freedom of Information (FOI) request]”

Section 7: Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

Section 7 makes it an offence to make, adapt, supply or offer to supply any article knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or intending it to be used to commit or facilitate fraud. [e.g. a computer model designed to falsely represent warming global temperatures]. Subsection (2) provides that the maximum custodial sentence for this offense is 10 years.

Section 8: “Article”

Section 8 extends the meaning of “article” for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 and certain other connected provisions so as to include any program or data held in electronic form.

For a full and detailed explanation of every facet of the Fraud Act (2006) visit this Crown Prosecution website page.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we may determine that Professor Jones’ conduct may be found by a Crown prosecutor to be sufficient to obtain a conviction against him for obtaining services dishonestly (government climate research grant funds) and of possessing, making and supplying articles for use in frauds (climate data, graphs, computer models).

The Fraud Act creates serious offenses of dishonesty and the statute of limitations is six years. Unless the factors against prosecution outweigh those in favour, a prosecution will normally take place. The offense is triable either way and carries maximum 10-year sentence or a fine (or both) on indictment.

University of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones

I’ve just come off the phone to the investigations office at the Information Commissioner’s office. I was told that while there appeared to be a problem, I needed to be clear that there would be no prosecutions under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, regardless of the final outcome of the investigation.

…. Although withholding or destroying information is a criminal offence under the terms of the Act, apparently no prosecutions can be brought for offences committed more than six months prior. As anyone who has made a UK FoI request knows, it can take six months to exhaust the internal review process before the ICO even becomes involved. The ICO can then take another six months before starting his investigation.

In leaked emails and statements to the press, climatologists 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 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.
 
However, 1,000 leaked emails and other documents released by a whistleblower from within the CRU last November prove that lead British climate conspirator, Professor Phil Jones, admitted a deliberate intention to prevent skeptic scientists from seeing the requested FOIA climate data over a five year period. The Freedom of Information Act (2000) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is the implementation of freedom of information legislation that introduces a public “right to know” in relation to public bodies. The Act implements a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election and which Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has trumpeted.
 
In email correspondence dated February 4, 2004 [ email 1076083097 ] Jones stated,

“I’m still against the computer programs being given out.”

In another email he admits that he stymied FOI request from respected independent climate analysts, Steve McIntyer:

“I had some emails with him [McIntyre] a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here in Climatic Research Unit. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met(eorological) Services through the Global Tele-communications Service (GTS) or through the Global Climate Observing System.”  [February 9, 2004: email 1076336623]

However as the pressure to release climate data grows, Jones becomes more desperate to defeat FOIA requests any way he can and begins to give colleagues tips on finding loopholes in the legislation and makes this suggestion to American climatologist, Tom Wigley:

“As you’re no longer an employee, I would use this argument if anything comes along.” [January 21, 2005: email 1106338806]

Bishop Hill goes on:

“The upshot is that the FoI Act’s section allowing criminal prosecutions is to all intents and purposes a dead letter and the ICO officer actually volunteered this conclusion himself – “the Act is flawed” was the way he put it. The ICO is apparently going to take this up with the Ministry of Justice, which is fine but will be of little help for those who are interested in seeing justice done.”

 Such flaws appear to have been fully apparent to Phil Jones who had a very cosy relationship with government civil servants entrusted to enforce compliance. Jones refers to the refining the loopholes even further to help his associates duck the law:

“As for the Freedom Of Information Act, Sarah isn’t technically employed by the University of East Anglia and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.”   [January 21, 2005: email 1106338806]

Again Jones refers to the ‘nuisance’ being caused by FOIA requests:

“[McIntyre and McKitrick] have been after the Climatic Research Unit … data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.”[ February 2, 2005: email 1107454306]

 Professor Jones appeared to be spending more and more of his publicly funded time trying to find every dodge in the book to keep the public from discovering his great climate scam:

“Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it—he thought people could ask him for his computer programs. He has retired officially from the University of East Anglia so he can hide behind that.” [February 2, 2005: email 1107454306]

 But will we now witness further complicity by the UK government on top of that committed so perniciously by Professor Jones?  If Prime Minister Brown fails to take immediate steps to redress the balance in law, then he will stand accused not only of abject incompetence in drafting the FOIA laws, but intentional subversion of the principles of that Act hypocritically subverted for his own political benefit.
 
We call for transparency, integrity and a closure of any loopholes created by poorly worded legislation by an incompetent government that may now seek to hide behind its own mistakes to preserve its claims to the dwindling credibility on the science that drives its climate policies.
 
We further demand that if the British government refuses to implement an immediate legislative remedy to their FOIA “flaws” to correct the loopholes than representation and motions will be made to the UK Supreme Court demanding an immediate Judicial Review.