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

“Those people who have become global warming deniers and those people who have become climate change deniers are against the grain of all the evidence that has been assembled that global warming and climate change are indeed challenges that the world must meet and that can only be met together.

We’re glad to see that even the Prime Minister of the UK is confused about what term to use. It won’t be long until we are global warming/global cooling/climate change/global constant temperature deniers. Then they’ll have us covered.

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!

Another honest scientist steps forward. Professor John Beddington.

Just as we reported yesterday, the anthropogenic global warming theory is fast falling apart at the seams thanks to scientists of integrity bravely standing up to be counted. Earlier today it was Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver. On Tuesday, it was Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the man who was once a true insider of the elite, having served as a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author in 2001 for the Third Assessment Report.

Today we can update you with the news that the credibility of the IPCC and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken another major blow as Britain’s highest ranked government scientist, Professor John Beddington CMG FRS admits the science for global warming is “uncertain.”

Professor Beddington today makes his stand for skeptic principle in the London Times Online:

“I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

The esteemed professor admitted to the Times that the false claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’.”

There is no one higher in the British Government’s pecking order of scientists than Professor John Beddington. He is the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Professor of Applied Population Biology at Imperial College London.Beddington was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2001. As Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government (CSA) Beddington acts as the personal adviser on science and technology-related activities and policies to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. He has a significant public role as the government’s most visible scientific expert and is a key figure within Britain’s Royal Society.

Two years have elapsed since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Report. In that time Britain’s world famous Royal Society has negligently failed to comment on that discredited report.

Regular readers will recall that I raised suspicions four days ago that something was seriously amiss within the Royal Society for its omission to state where it stood about the IPCC’s Fourth Report.

This will be a story that will fester until the Royal Society follows Professor Beddington’s lead and comes out publicly to stand up for scientific integrity and transparency.

Climategate.com heartily welcomes Professor Beddington’s public stand for the noble principles of scientific scepticism and we applaud him as we do all other esteemed scientists who have the courage to speak out publicly for the greater good of science.

The honourable professor thinks:

“wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community”

This is the best news I have heard since the Climategate scandal first broke. It is a positive step forward and gives us all who fight for truth in science real hope that other esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society will have the courage and integrity to follow suit and protect the age old reputation of this great British institution. Sadly, until there is a clear public pronouncement I fear it will be ever more deeply mired in accusations of political toadyism.

Environmental stewardship? Sounds Orwelian for World Police to us.

Here is what the Prime Minister will reportedly say: “Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down those talks. Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries. One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship.

Full story: Times Online | Discuss: here

Full story: Telegraph | Discuss