Note: I’m having problems getting the table formatting to display the internal grid, but I’m going to post now, rather than wait to work out how to get around this.
The following is a comparison of the climategate and Heartland document release. I chose to compare them using the criteria provided by the PCC. As far as I can see this is a pretty well open and shut case. The publication of information stolen from the Heartland Institute is against PCC code of conduct because there is no public interest and it breaks numerous sections whereas the release of climategate emails was fully justified by public interest.
|
Name |
Climate gate |
Denier-gate |
|
Who |
University of East Anglia Emails |
Heartland Institute |
|
Public/Private |
Public |
Private |
|
Type of information released |
Emails and data |
Board-meeting and fund-raising documents |
|
Had it been requested under FOI |
Yes |
No |
|
Required to be released under FOI |
Yes |
No |
|
How obtained |
Unknown as to whether legal or illegal means used |
Obtained by deception. |
|
Was the information accurate or otherwise break the |
No. |
Yes, both sceptics and non-sceptics agree.a key |
|
Was there any breach of the PPC code on privacy 3 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Were any clandestine devices or subterfuges used in |
Documents were obtained and it does not appear they |
The press clearly published material from messages |
|
Was there a public interest defence? |
||
|
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious |
The information commission ruled that the law on FOI |
The is no suggestion of serious crime or |
|
ii) Protecting public health and safety. |
Not Applicable |
Even if it were argued that global warming is a |
|
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an |
It is generally accepted that the climate scientists |
No evidence that the public have been misled by the |
|
Was a reasonal attempt made to verify the material |
Many organisations such as the BBC sat on the emails |
Material from the documents was published very |
