International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)


“UEA broke FoI law” — but the real question is, what will the Heartland Institute say?

[cite as: S. Stepanovich. 2010. “UEA broke FoI law” — but the real question is, what will the Heartland Institute say? Intl. J. Inact., 3:5]

This just in:

The [Climatic Research Unit of the] University of East Anglia broke the law by refusing to release data requested under the Freedom of Information Act by climate-change sceptics, a watchdog has ruled.

However, the laws were flouted too long ago to make prosecution possible in the case, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said.

Now, the climate inactivist group that is Heartland Institute hasn’t yet covered this story, but if they do, I imagine it’ll look something like this:

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office has ruled that CRU broke the law by hiding data relating to climate change. This is a very serious crime indeed, and it very clearly confirms the existence of a nefarious conspiracy behind the global warming scare, fueled by radical Marxist elements such as Richard Stallman.

Strangely, the ICO announcement was timed to coincide with Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Is this a coincidence, or was the ICO pressured by global warming believers into trying to downplay the impact of their revelation?

Despite whatever pressures the ICO might have been facing, as a foot soldier in the great war for freedom, I find it refreshing that a government agency can still speak with such candor on the existence of the global warming fraud. In this day and age, when a war hero like McCain could lose a presidential election merely because he refused to call Barack Obama by his middle name — Hussein — the ICO finding is a much-needed antidote to the liberal madness that surrounds us. There is hope for humanity after all.



  1. Hmmm, what does the ICO know that the rest of us don’t — if anything?

    Does anyone else find it weird that they would pre-empt an independent investigation is going on that, contrary to them, has access to actual evidence?

    Perhaps I’m naive…

    Comment by Martin Vermeer — 2010/01/28 @ 18:44 | Reply

    • To be fair, the Norfolk constabulary did mention (in their reply to Bishop Hill) that they’re working with the ICO, so perhaps the ICO was working from some actual evidence. But the announcement as given by the ICO is so darn opaque that it’s hard to tell what really happened.

      Comment by stepanovich — 2010/01/29 @ 13:52 | Reply

    • I think I go along with the theory that the ICO are using this as a lever to try and get the 6-month deadline for complaints about improper handling of FOI requests extended.

      *Maybe* they’ve got some inside info from the police investigation, but it seems a bit reckless of them to be making use of that whilst it’s still ongoing. If I was the cop running the investigation I’d be a bit pissed off if someone in a partner agency looked they were jumping the gun on me.


      Comment by Luke Silburn — 2010/01/29 @ 21:15 | Reply

      • Yep, my theory too.

        Comment by Gavin's Pussycat — 2010/02/04 @ 09:15 | Reply

  2. An update (which we’ve put on the IJI SwiftHack section): Steve McIntyre has just blogged regarding the ICO announcement. Let the clown show begin.

    Comment by stepanovich — 2010/01/30 @ 04:28 | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: