Dev,

I believe that you are wrong.

Disciplinary action can be taken by the company if the message was really private and not business related. The compamy would probably try to resist making the message public on the grounds that the sender had been disciplined.

If the subject matter was business related it is not private it is company owned and can be subject to FOI.  Intellectual Property rightscan be protected from release (i.e the non disclosure rights mentioned by Tom).

The Information Commissioner clearly indicated that withholding/deleteing some of the Climategate emails was an offense under s77of the FOI Act.

The emails were not private correspondence. They were work related sent over company email systems in work time paid by public funds.

That comment is not quite right.

From the Act:

An Act to make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing services for them and to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Public Records Act 1958; and for connected purposes.

The FoI Act does not apply to private companies unless the information relates to their dealings with public bodies.

The Act excludes 'personal data' from the requirement to disclose, so arguably personal emails - depending on the content - might fall outside the scope of the act.

There are various exemptions, one of which relates to information which it is intended to publish at a later date., even where the date has not been determined.

Like much legislation the devil is in the detail.

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Me I call a spade a spade rather than play word games. The emails were nicked, stolen, theived, illegally obtained no matter how you try to spin it.

GTW,

Private Company?  In order not to complicate the issue further I made no distinction.  The "company" in the case of the Climategate emails was a public entity.  Whether private or public the emails are considered company owned.

Dev,

Yes nicked, stolen theived, illegally obtained, or LEAKED from whom?  The point is that some were subject to FOI and an offense was committed by some scientists according to the ICO.

If you call a spade a spade what would you call those scientists?

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

"You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices."

The worthwhile facts, related to this thread and under discussion are the contents of some emails. Ethics are a seperate issue, but Jeff puts that argument to bed, and still you will not discuss them

And you along with Devonian have time and time again recently in this thread, demonstrated your extreme prejudices and reiterated them - some say "bleated".

Below, I have posted the definition of a troll from Wiki:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Do you fit the description with regard to your recent contributions here? .

Parts of this thread are starting to read like a meeting of Right-Wing-Echo-Chamber Victims Anonymous LOL!

On such: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/40018314#40018314

In other words, don't believe something just because you read it somewhere in the media

Cheers - John

The law is quite complex actually, due to data protection legislation I am required to encrypt my university owned laptop.

Actually universities are not public bodies.

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Gandalf said:

"You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices."

The worthwhile facts, related to this thread and under discussion are the contents of some emails. Ethics are a seperate issue, but Jeff puts that argument to bed, and still you will not discuss them

And you along with Devonian have time and time again recently in this thread, demonstrated your extreme prejudices and reiterated them - some say "bleated".

Below, I have posted the definition of a troll from Wiki:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Do you fit the description with regard to your recent contributions here? .

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

The irony in Gandalf's rant is quite remarkable, and just highlights the impossible task sceptics of AGW have, to engage in a serious discussion with those proponents of AGW. Another debate shut down! 

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

Serious discussion SC involves actually talking about science not hurling insults, you need to learn that. The science must be in the peer reviewed literature too as in all physical science topics that is the source of the current understanding of a subject and debate about it.

Maybe that is because in the real world the debate has moved on from arguing about whether it is happening to discussing the extent, the likely consequences and the necessary mitigation actions.

If I may remind you of the misguided title of this thread, I rather think your attempts to reach the moral high ground are somewhat doomed...

Really?  You think they are inflammatory?  Extraneous? Off-topic?

Give it a rest Dave.  You need to stop being biased, unless you have forgotten to mention the other contributors here who do far worse.

As I just said to SC, you have only to read the title of this (for some odd reason 'stickied') thread. Any reasonable person might argue that the thread title alone was inflammatory.

If people insist on posting what is clearly misleading or inflammatory then I reserve the right to challenge it in appropriate language, measured against the tone of the post concerned.

You are not exactly innocent yourself, as this post indicates. So, what's the difference between what you have posted here and that to which you are objecting exactly?

Well that's good advice John but I would extend those questions beyond just the media. I think there are very reasonable grounds for debate about aspects of the peer review process which have been (deliberately?) ignored in favour of a set to over stolen e-mails.

The idea that to challenge or question a consensus is somehow 'right wing' makes me a little suspicious. Everything from every source should be questioned and debated, only that way lies the truth.

Indeed but in physical science there is correct and wrong not just opinion. I am unwilling to talk of left and right wing because scientists hold a very wide range of political view irrelevant to their science. The problem is though that an anti-science agenda does exist particularly from the USA and you see it in debates about evolution, climate change, pesticides, vaccination etc and this does seem to be right wing in its tone and it does seem to aflict the political fringe over here.

As for peer review it is carried out by humans but no-one has thought of a better system. Blog science contains often contains so many basic errors that a sift is needed or one would waste ones life reading it.

But isn't what makes it into the peer reviewed literature what we are debating here? There is a moral and political element to climate science which plays a role in what and how things are reviewed.

I remember Stephen Schnieder castigating Cambridge University Press for publishing Lomborg's Skeptikal Environmentalist and yet the IPCC used information from students and pressure groups in their reports.

I have to say I accept the science on climate change but that doesn't mean I do so unquestioningly. There is a huge moral and political element to climate science which can not be ignored. I just don't believe that the science takes place in it's own little bubble of impartiality.

Articles like below demonstrate why there will always remain a bridge between the two sides.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

It will only become clear which side is right after many more decades.

Well a great deal of the detailed work is inevitably impartial, take for example my own work on the physics of clouds and cloud aerosol interactions. We spend the day trying to work out what is going in case studies or collections of case studies by interpreting data, modelling and lab studies, the implications for climate change are there but hard to know and not worth thinking about whilst trying to get good quality science out into the peer reviewed literature. Much of the research is like this only those who actually run the final products ie climate models are at the fore front of the social / political consequnces in their work.

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

Originally Posted by: TomC 

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Gandalf said:

"You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices."

The worthwhile facts, related to this thread and under discussion are the contents of some emails. Ethics are a seperate issue, but Jeff puts that argument to bed, and still you will not discuss them

And you along with Devonian have time and time again recently in this thread, demonstrated your extreme prejudices and reiterated them - some say "bleated".

Below, I have posted the definition of a troll from Wiki:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Do you fit the description with regard to your recent contributions here? .

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

The irony in Gandalf's rant is quite remarkable, and just highlights the impossible task sceptics of AGW have, to engage in a serious discussion with those proponents of AGW. Another debate shut down! 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Serious discussion SC involves actually talking about science not hurling insults, you need to learn that. The science must be in the peer reviewed literature too as in all physical science topics that is the source of the current understanding of a subject and debate about it.

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

Maliciously harrassed.

That does make things somewhat clearer S.C.! If you reject the science then your only inputs can be personal observation (a little localised in both time and geography) and unsubstantiated blogs/ideas by others?

Most of us here use 'peer reviewed papers' only (and occasionally rehashed 'extracts'?) because you can check (should you wish) the data and previous studies used to form the 'conclusion' (and not the absolute truth?).

We all must 'trust' to some extent or other lest we be trapped in a very shallow 'I Me, Mine' type of existence doubting all (except that which we choose to accept).

I'm good with the info I personally cull (my studies of the ice pack across the Arctic Basin by the Sat's available) and the papers I come across and try to digest, how else am I expected to grow in my understanding?

I'll just like to add also that we cannot make any reliable estimate of the sensitivity of the earths temperature to anthropogneic CO2.  You can't use a pix n mix attitude to arrive at a conclusion! 

You just did...

Much as you'd like to think otherwise SC, nobody really cares if some rabid sceptic with mad haxxor skillz raided data from a private email account somewhere because it isn't part of the debate. In fact its just a lowlife crime. What is part of the debate, is the peer reviewed literature. It's a shame you don't talk about that much, but it does demonstrate that you've got nothing much to say other than trying to glorify a crime.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

The two are connected in case it as slipped your mind, gosh you warmers really are blinkered. Peer reviewed literature isn't worth diddley squat, as those e-mails suggested! 

Originally Posted by: TomC 

I see you have lost another argument SC.  You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices.

Let's try again.  The emails were stolen, i.e. obtained illegally.  They were stolen to order for a specific purpose.  I can think of nothing that justifies that action and if you condone it in any way whatsoever then your judgement is suspect.

It speaks volumes for the desperation of the sceptic/denier lunatic fringe that this non-event in terms of adding value to the debate should be held in such high regard.

Let us know when (a) you have your moral compass re-tuned and (b) want to engage in discussion about the facts.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Gandalf said:

"You don't seem able to engage in discussing the facts, you merely fall back on tedious and over-used prejudices."

The worthwhile facts, related to this thread and under discussion are the contents of some emails. Ethics are a seperate issue, but Jeff puts that argument to bed, and still you will not discuss them

And you along with Devonian have time and time again recently in this thread, demonstrated your extreme prejudices and reiterated them - some say "bleated".

Below, I have posted the definition of a troll from Wiki:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

Do you fit the description with regard to your recent contributions here? .

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

The irony in Gandalf's rant is quite remarkable, and just highlights the impossible task sceptics of AGW have, to engage in a serious discussion with those proponents of AGW. Another debate shut down! 

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Serious discussion SC involves actually talking about science not hurling insults, you need to learn that. The science must be in the peer reviewed literature too as in all physical science topics that is the source of the current understanding of a subject and debate about it.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

I reject the science Tom, all our warming can be attributed to natural variability within our climate sytem. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest the small increase in CO2 levels has lead to any increase in global temperatures. You are trying too make a cake without eggs and flour

 Your evidence consist of manipulated data, hopeless computer simulated modelling, and a complete lack of understanding of albedo effects.

 

Originally Posted by: Ulric 

 You see the problem is that you are in no position to reject the science. It is known that the increased CO2 produces a radiative forcing of about 2.5 W m-2. . Doubling atmospheric CO2 produces a forcing of about 4 W m-2 which corresponds to a warming of about 1C without feedbacks. You will not find a physicist who doesn't accept that because it follows directly from the structure of the CO2 molecule