<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Do CRU emails show FOIA wrong-doing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawiscool.com/2009/11/23/do-cru-emails-show-foia-wrong-doing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawiscool.com/2009/11/23/do-cru-emails-show-foia-wrong-doing/?nucrss=1</link>
	<description>The law school blog and podcast from Canada</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: merric</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2009/11/23/do-cru-emails-show-foia-wrong-doing/comment-page-1/#comment-7460</link>
		<dc:creator>merric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:56:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/?p=2280#comment-7460</guid>
		<description>Good post - I stumbled across it while searching for some information on whether or not the UK FOI was actually breached.

One other consideration is whether or not the information is FOIable to begin with.  In one of the emails from Professor Phil Jones, he states that the Information Commissioner has stated that IPCC-related documents are not subject to FOI claims.  The AR4 report to which Jones refers is an IPCC report.

This is apparently because the IPCC is an international body and that the UK FOI does not purport to exercise jurisdiction over it.

From my limited understanding of the UK FOI Act (I&#039;m from Australia), I think this is an exception under Part 1, section (2)(a) of the Act (accessible here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g3).

Do you have any thoughts on that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post &#8211; I stumbled across it while searching for some information on whether or not the UK FOI was actually breached.</p>
<p>One other consideration is whether or not the information is FOIable to begin with.  In one of the emails from Professor Phil Jones, he states that the Information Commissioner has stated that IPCC-related documents are not subject to FOI claims.  The AR4 report to which Jones refers is an IPCC report.</p>
<p>This is apparently because the IPCC is an international body and that the UK FOI does not purport to exercise jurisdiction over it.</p>
<p>From my limited understanding of the UK FOI Act (I&#8217;m from Australia), I think this is an exception under Part 1, section (2)(a) of the Act (accessible here: <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g3" rel="nofollow">http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g3</a>).</p>
<p>Do you have any thoughts on that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dale White</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2009/11/23/do-cru-emails-show-foia-wrong-doing/comment-page-1/#comment-7459</link>
		<dc:creator>Dale White</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:34:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/?p=2280#comment-7459</guid>
		<description>You will get a better feel of the actions of the scientists involved in this article:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You will get a better feel of the actions of the scientists involved in this article:</p>
<p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

