This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Of course, the government doesn't actually do anything when presented with these petitions. All they do is use them as a measure of whether they have to redefine whatever nonsense is being opposed or they decide how long they need to wait before going ahead anyway.
They just dropped Road Pricing Schemes, sort of - in response to a petition? Maybe but many warn that just because it has been dropped for the moment, doesn't mean it won't re-surface later on with a new justification or a different spin.
The real point is that this is a money spinner at £1.30 a mile. (This is a huge price to pay anyway and may be deliberately so in order that when they publish at 40p per mile they think it will be more palatable).
In the Telegraph:
Stephen Joseph, executive director of the Campaign for Better Transport.
"If road use continues to grow, some means will have to be found to deal with it. If we are not to have old-fashioned Soviet rationing by queues, sooner or later a Government will have to look at pricing."
This is fine if there were such a thing as "hypothecation" (wrong word but it was JP's favourite). There isn't. So it doesn't matter how much money you raise or how, it will not be spent on the roads.
Gordon Brown's mob need the tax money that AGW brings in.
I'd guess they don't actually have the source codes (NASA?) because they have never tested the hypothesis but just accpeted global warming scam wholesale.
Now they have to refuse to release the codes or they have to admit they have been making up policy based on untested hearsay evidence.
Chances are they'll say the source codes are commercially sensitive, or have some kind of military significance.
So this may not work, but what the heck, its worth the fun of it.
I agree , unlikely to elicit a response, but you have to try.
Presumably the idea for the petition comes from the Climate Audit blog chasing after James Hanson of NASA to release source code, and is trying to apply the same idea to the UK. But in the USA, as I understand it, government agencies like NASA have been required to release software that can be potentially accessed at some point by the general public since the 1960s. In the UK I'm not aware of any software development carried out in the public sector being released to the general public. The only time you see a UK academic releasing source code is in connection with trying to sell a book. I think it would be difficult to introduce the idea of UK organisations suddenly having to release source code whose development has been paid for by the public when they haven't been required to do it for the last forty years.
Having said the above I'm a bit surprised that UK climate scientists don't voluntarily do 'open source' in any case if they think what they are doing is so important to the future of the world.
A starting point for a UK climate change-related program where a reasonable case might be made for releasing the source code to the public might be one called PRECIS.
This PRECIS program is officially distributed as a software product together with source code, but it only seems to be made available to academic institutions in developing countries. I think a case could be made here that if source code developed under funding by the British taxpayer is being released to 'Johnny Foreigner', then it should be released to British nationals as well.
I didn't like to throw cold water over the idea (I have signed the petition, by the way) but I think the best we can hope for is to embarrass the government.
Once upon a time that would suffice.
Today - as the expenses affair has shown, it takes a great deal to get a message through and Gordon has proven to have a hide that a rhinoceros would be proud of.
The real issue is to draw attention to the fundamental flaws in the AGW hypothesis - that unless some one else can take the data and the methods (which has to include the computer model) then it can't be properly validated or reviewed.
The best the "peer reviewers" can do is see if the spelling and grammar is OK."
So let's go for it.
PS Can I suggest you raise awareness by telling the newspapers what you have done and why? Any publicity may help.
That is, of course, the AChilles heel of the No 10 petitions... there are so many of the that the real problem is to draw attention to them and that requires the media interest first.
Signed your petition & will be spreading the word. I don't hold out a lot of hope though.
As for data, back in 2007 it was admitted that CRU had only adjusted data for most sites with little/no record of the adjustments made/
Signed. I wonder what MI6 do with the names and addresses?
All such personal details are complied into a data base on the No 10 server.
The database is then stored on a non-secure computer disc.
This disc is then transferred to a private company for processing (the owner of which is a close personal friend of a senior Minister and has contributed generously to the Labour party).
The data is allegedly transported using a secure vehicle (taxi or limousine) but actually by train (cheaper but it will still appear as a taxi on expenses).
The courier is a "senior consultant" who charges £150 per hour for this service.
As a natural part of this service, the disc is then left on a train and is recovered by a Daily Newspaper.
The details are serialised in the Daily Newspaper.
MI6 thus collects the data pre-processed by the Daily Newspaper just as they acquire all relevant data ready analysed from the press.
The Private company saves on employee expenses since all data handling is done by the recipient newspaper.
No 10 starts an enquiry that will never complete.
One thing I have to say in praise of the government petitions website is that it has made a major contribution to the blowing of the Greenie myth that they were some sort of popular movement.
In the mid-00s there was a disturbing development where the Greenies seemed to be having some success in convincing the British political class that Green causes enjoyed popular support through a number of dodgy looking '8 out of 10 cats' type opinion polls.
An example of such a poll from the Guardian in February 2006:
"The poll also suggests that the message that small changes in people's domestic lives can make a difference appears to be hitting home: 83% said they or their family had turned the television off instead of leaving it on standby to protect the environment. Some 82% of households said they had turned the central heating down, 75% had installed low energy lightbulbs, 25% had cycled at least one journey instead of using the car and 24% said they had decided against a holiday that involved flying.
Ninety-two per cent said they recycled as much rubbish as possible, while 38% said they were likely to install solar panels, and 28% a wind turbine. Almost three-quarters (73%) said they would upgrade their home insulation."
Jonathan Porritt's Sustainable Development Commission released a report heavily promoting wind energy in 2006 which included a chapter that consisted of about twenty opinion polls expressing strong public support for windfarms.
But when the e-petitions website started up in early 2007 it bacame apparent fairly quickly, even to somebody living in the 'Westminster Bubble', that Green causes weren't as popular as they had been presented. I think all Green-related petitions have been well short of the 50,000 signatures that the Jeremy Clarkson for Prime Minister petition managed to get. The only successful petitions that are sort of environmentally-related have been the pro fox-hunting ones. Petitions which appeal to 'Middle England' do very well like the road pricing petition got nearly 2 million signatures and even quite trivial ones like the Red Arrows being allowed to participate in the London Olympics got quarter of a million signatures.
The Greenies now seem to be much more on the back foot in regard to their popularity. In late 2008 Ed Miliband suggested to the Green movement that they needed to put much greater effort into establishing themselves as a popular movement and gave 'Make Poverty History' and the suffragette movement as examples.
Not too many signatures as yet.
The only way to gather any momentum for this petition is to publicise it.
Our Bending Author comments on the ongoing weather forecasts and links to Watts Up With That. Following the links on the age we come to:
This Page contains a link to the Petition.
Yes, the petition is doing a lot better than it was a few weeks ago. It only just about made 20 signatures when (I assume) it was only being publicised in this forum. After the petition link appeared in a "Watts up with that" blog post a few days ago, with an extract from the WUWT post which includes the link being further publicised in the "An Englishman's Castle" blog and Junkscience.com, it's managed to make it to over 160 signatures at the time of writing.
The most interesting signatory is somebody called Peter Lilley, who could quite possibly be the MP. Lilley was one of only a tiny number of MPs who voted against the Climate Change Bill as I recall.
There may be another way to get at this data, or at least, make the government uncomfortable, which is the proposal that the government should be challenged on certain issues to declare what its policy is and what the evidence is to support that policy.
The list of topics they show is touchingly neutral but they do ask for suggestions and I'd suggest Cliamte Change is an obvious choice.
Anyone up for submitting it?
The information is here:
which has links to the committee page.
Nothing can make this government uncomfortable, they are entirely shameless. OK, most governments are shameless, but these more than most.
This has closed with what looks like 212 signatures.
Gordon Browns response is here:
It looks like you can have these codes, or the use of them, under certain conditions.
I'm not sure what that will prove to mean. It may mean that they are now available or it may mean that anyone who just wants to trash (criticise) their models may find they do not qualify.
Of course, use of and access to with a view to seeing what is going on may be two different things; like being allowed to use Windows 7 but not deconstruct it.
Incidentally, we do have a problem that researchers are being denied this access and furthermore that the CRU's dog has eaten its homework, as this WUWT article says: