Steve McIntyre has received another request from the IPCC to remove text and a figure from the AR5 ZODS (Zero Order Drafts) that appear on his site:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/26/another-ipcc-demand-for-secrecy/
He responded with a request for the legal basis behind their request; it will be interesting to read the response, if any.
I haven't responded to the IPCC request I received, and as of now don't plan to. I continue to strongly believe the documents are of public and journalistic interest (especially those of WG2), and have been working on a piece with more on this. As a journalist I believe I have every right to publish this material, which I did not obtain by illicit means. (And, as far as that goes, I also have that right as a US citizen.) Nor do I see how I can possibly be bound by any IPCC strictures.
I honestly don't know enough about Canadian law to know Steve's position -- he writes that he knows of nothing that legally binds him, either. And I certainly think his long record of investigation and blogging demonstrates he should qualify under any freedoms of the press (while recognizing that courts both here and there are still sorting this out). He said that he registered as an IPCC reviewer of the FODs but never received any documents, and didn't (and wouldn't) agree to confidentiality agreements.
In any case, the documents are now mirrored at Cryptome, as well as Wikispooks.
I think the IPCC is making a mountain out of molehill on this, and fanning what were barely warm embers. It makes me wonder if they aren't pressing this issue just because they can.
4 comments:
McIntyre says you and he are "in full agreement". But there is a difference: you are leaking the ZODs. He leaked a figure from the FOD (which was not in the ZOD), and anyone who has the FOD has agreed not to distribute it. It seems someone has broken this agreement and leaked the FOD to McIntyre.
Are you in agreement with him regarding leaking the FOD as well as the ZOD?
David,
A couple of days ago our DECC refused to give me the Second Order Drafts which, like your government's "focal point" they received on a CD. I think on appeal I might get them, but why don't you ask for them in the USA.
David Holland
Oops! I meant FIRST Order Drafts.
Copyright
Post a Comment