This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
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: