Steve McIntyre posted this breaking story:
Breaking news: Today probably marks the closing chapter of the longstanding FOI request for CRUTEM station data. The UK Information Commissioner (ICO) has rendered a decision (see here) on Jonathan Jones’ appeal of the UEA’s refusal to provide Prof Jones with the CRUTEM station data that they had previously provided to Georgia Tech. The decision that can only be characterized as a total thrashing of the University of East Anglia.
I’m having fun chuckling as I read the PDF. Seems the commissioner interprets a statute written in English as if it were written in English. Imagine that?
I can’t seem to cut and paste from this pdf, but I imagine people will appreciate the ability to quote. I’m going to quickly type in paragraphs that made me smile. I’ve got the first few in. This is so fun, I’m going to click publish and continue updating!! 🙂
32. The Commisioner’s view is that the phrase “… already publicly available information” contained in regulation 6 refers to whether an applicant can reasonably obtain all information to which the regulation has been applied. It does not refer to whether the applicant can access a reasonable portion of the information to which it has been applied.
33. He is also of the view that information is easily accessible if a public authority is able to direct the applicant to where they can locate the same information that has been requested. The public authority has to be reasonably specific as to the location of the information to ensure that it is found without difficulty and not hidden within a mass of other information. If it is able to do this, in the Commisionner’s view, the public authority has discharged its duty under regulation 5 which requires it to make environmental information available on request.
34. The dataset available on the GHCN website contains data for a much larger number of weather stations than that contained in the withheld datasets. The Commissioner notes that the public authority did not inform the complainant which weather stations on the GHCN website were included in the datasets that were withheld. Consequently, it is no apparent how the complainant would have been able to identify on the GHCN website the information that had been withheld under regulation 6.
35. In addition, the process that UEA described that the complainant would have needed to follow to obtain the same information as it held is by no means straightforward and would appear to require information technology skill beyond those possessed by many members of the public.
36. Based on the evidence provided to him, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the information to which UEA has applied regulation 6 in datasets A and B is publicly available and easily accessible. He has therefor determined that regulation 6 is not applicable to any of the withheld information.
Paragraphs 37 and 38 suggest the commissioner thinks that to claim an exemption based on disclosure having an adverse affect, the public authority (i.e. CRU) has to show it “would” have the adverse affect and more over that the adverse affect must be shown to actually be “adverse”. That is: he seems to interpret “would” to mean “would”, rather than something like, “hypothetically, one might advance an argument that it possibly might oh… and we didn’t really check, but what little checking suggests that, really, any affect is rather unlikely”.
The commissioner describes CRU’s argument and evidence and wraps up:
79. Without further evidence than that available to him at present, the Commissioner is in the position of having to carry out a highly speculative exercise as to the potential affect of disclosure and the likelihood of any occurring, He is consequently not satisfied that it is more probable than not that this disclosure would adversely affect international relations and that regulation 12(5)(a) is engaged.
On to “intellectual property”!
99. […] UEA’s arguments have presented arguments about infringement to intellectual property rights but no convincing evidence has been supplied about the actual affect on the rights holders e.g. impact on the ability to derive value or exploit their intellectual property or other impacts of the loss of control.
100. The Commissioner is in the position of having to carry out a highly speculative exercise as to the potential impact of disclosure. On the basis of the evidence and arguments supplied by UEA he is not satisfied it is more probable than not that disclosure would adversely affect the intellectual property rights of the NMSs and other bodies that supplied information.
101. UEA also argued that disclosure would have adversely affected its own intellectual property rights because it would lose control of the wider dissemination of the withheld informaiton and as a result lose any right of commercial exploitation of the data sets.
102. However, the Commissioner notes that the request was not for a copy of UEA’s current data set but for the datasets that contained temperature data up to November 2008. That particular datasets that were requested were therefor nearly a year old at the time of the request. In addition, the data sets only related to a limited part of the world, covering the latitude zones 30N to 40S, rather being for datasets held by UEA that covered the whole world.
103. The Commissioner also takes note of the fact that UEW has informed him that 85.5% of the information in the withheld data set as already available on the GHCN website. In addition, for the 11.8% of the data in UEA’s database there was comparable but different data on the GHCN website. Only in respect to 2.7% of the data contained in UEA’s data sets was there no comparable data on the GHCN website.
104. Given all of the above, it is not clear to the Commissioner how UEA might have planned to commercially exploit the specific information requested and how disclosures might have impacted on any plans that it might have developed or been in the process of developing. He is consequently not satisfied it is more probable than not that disclosure would adversely affect its intellectual property rights. He has therefore determined that regulation 12(5)(c) is not engaged.
I might suggest that this is the formal legal way a Commissioner states that UEA’s claims that disclosure would adversely affect its intellectual property are tantamount to hallucinations.
On to “Interests of information provider”! The short story: The Commissioner is “not satisfied that it is more probable than not that disclosure would adversely affect the interests of the information providers that regulation 12(5)(f) were engaged.
(Based on paragraphs 112 and 113, I await reading future articles discussing Poland’s reaction to this ruling. )
Paragraph 116. describes the procedural requirements:
“By failing to disclose the requested information contained in datasets A and B to the complainant within 20 working days of the request, UEA breached regulation 5(1) and 5(2).
On to The Decision:
117. The Commissioner has decided that UEA did not deal with the following elements of the request in accordance with the Act:
it incorrectly applied regulation 6 and regulation 12(5)(a), 12(5)(c) and 12(5)(f) to the information contained in datasets A and B; and it breached regulation 5(1) and 5(2) by not disclosing the information contained in datasets A and B to the complainant within 20 days of the request.
It appears UEA has a right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. I wonder if they will?
Lucia,
“It appears UEA has a right to apples to the First-tier Tribunal.”
Not sure what you meant here. I do like apples myself. Maybe “apply”?
kuhnkat– Heh. I thought I found all my typos…. 🙂
I think that the ICO is getting annoyed with UEA.
Steve Mc–
I get the impression he is annoyed too.
I like paragraph 51. Surely, during deliberations, the commissioner was aware that the Dec. 1, 2009 email and letter request to seek permission to release data was sent out under pressure in the wake of climategate and that, quite plausibly, UEA’s failure to send out requests did not spring from their belief that the Met Office would get a higher response rate but from UEA inclination to maintain a fig-leaf of an excuse to not release data.
It’s Jonathan not Jonathon.
“104. Given all of the above, it is not clear to the Commissioner how UEA might have planned to commercially exploit the specific information requested and how disclosures might have impacted on any plants that it might have developed or been in the process of developing. He is consequently not satisfied it is more probable than not that disclosure would adversely affect its intellectual property rights. He has therefore determined that regulation 12(5)(c) is not engaged.”
You have to love that “English” level of annoyance… I believe that CRU produced nothing of “Intellectual” Property 😉
Apparently the commissioner has basically ruled that non-disclosure agreements with foreign entities are null and void under the FOIA (unless they can create full-blown diplomatic incidents – paragraph 78ii).
.
That creates an interesting precedent!
Good one – although I did spend a minute wondering why Prof Jones was demanding his own data before I spotted that you meant Jonathan and not Phil.
Re: toto (Jun 28 02:54),
Interesting point.
I understand that there are a few such nondisclosure agreements. Trinidad & Tobago is mentioned, and I recall one with a Nordic country (Sweden?).
IIRC, one of the catalysts for this situation was UEA’s claim that there were a lot of these NDAs. Do we know what the final tally is?
“Breaking news: Today probably marks the closing chapter of the longstanding FOI request for CRUTEM station data. The UK Information Commissioner (ICO) has rendered a decision (see here) on Jonathan Jones’ appeal of the UEA’s refusal to provide Prof Jones with the CRUTEM station data that they had previously provided to Georgia Tech. The decision that can only be characterized as a total thrashing of the University of East Anglia. ”
The usual beat up and molehill to mountain transformation. It does nothing to refute the science, nor advance the science, nor help us deal with the global warming that is happening now.
The obsession with procedural warfare, which is all this is, is an just demonstrates that McIntyre has nothing better to do with his so called ‘auditing’. How about an ‘audit’ of Watts claim that the temperature record has been deliberately manipulated by selectively removing stations that hide cooling? No, that would never happen. The awesome powers auditing fail mysteriously.
Steve McIntyre (Comment #78070)
“I think that the ICO is getting annoyed with UEA.”
If I were the ICO I would be a bit annoyed with an institution that claimed that they didn’t need to release the data because it was already public; and simultaneously claimed that release of the data would impair their ability to take commercial advantage of that same data.
The overall impression left by UEA’s handling of the FOIA is one of deception and bad faith.
bugs –
the ICO decision had nothing to do with McIntyre – it was a FOI request by Prof J.Jones that was refused by UEA. the fact that UEA advanced a whole variety of reasons for refusal each of which has been painstakingly dismantled by the ICO shows where the real problem lies: with non-disclosure of information that the public has a right to gain access to, and not with the desire to audit the information in the first place.
Today I can’t imagine a subject area more worthy of comprehensive audit than climate science, taking into account the vastness of the expenditure and the uncertainties embedded in the science. Can you?
Bugs,
Every day in every way the incompetents at CRU are having their incompetence exposed to the world. Now I will grant, for the purpose of argument, that there is always a possibility that people with a long track record of screwing up everything they touch might possibly produce some climate research that isn’t affected by their general tendency to produce garbage.
But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Evidence of coverups, poor decisions, bias, conflicts of interests, lack of quality control, and abandonment of the scientific method tend to reflect adversely on one’s professional work.
bugs (Comment #78087)
You puzzle me Bugs! Why are you so scared about anyone having access to the data sets?
I am someone who normally holds back and reads what is going on but as a UK tax payer I want to know that my money is being used wisely and to a good end. Let me ask this simple question of you…
I am currently being treated for cancer. Now, if you were in my position would you not question if the AGW science/research is worthwhile or would the the money be better spent on medical science? It may seem selfish of me to ask but I think I have a right to know as to the truth.
stan (Comment #78091)
June 28th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Every day in every way the incompetents at CRU are having their incompetence exposed to the world.
——————————–
Clearly, the scientists at CRU are not incompetent (I notice it is OK to call climate scientists incompetent, but not OK to label skeptics as denialists). The average global temperature series produced by CRU is supported by its close agreement with GISS, NOOA, UAH, and RSS. It is also supported by the “doing science right” crusade of Muller at Berkeley. To listen to Stan’s over-the-top ridicule of quality scientists at CRU is embarassing to say the least.
The CRU scientists do, however, seem to be overly secretive (way over). They haven’t embraced the new openness that would make digital data freely available. They need to get with the program – it will only help their work to have the data checked by others.
stan (Comment #78091)
June 28th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Bugs,
“Every day in every way the incompetents at CRU are having their incompetence exposed to the world. Now I will grant, for the purpose of argument, that there is always a possibility that people with a long track record of screwing up everything they touch might possibly produce some climate research that isn’t affected by their general tendency to produce garbage. ”
That’s the narrative that McIntyre constructs and people swallow without question. When it came to the satellites vs CRU, who was right and who was wrong? McIntyre got it wrong, CRU got it right. Funnily enough, that is not a part of the narrative.
http://climateaudit.org/2005/04/23/moberg-satellite/
I am still trying to figure out what it is they want to hide. There can’t be any really meaningful discrepancies in temp records given all the known data and analysis already out there, can there? What’s to hide?
Sloppiness? Questionable tweaks? Or can it really be just the (bugs-approved) arrogance that self-appointed elites never have to answer to non-elite types who might prove the anointed made a mistake. By the way, did the Commissioner address the anti-FOI principle that bugs has espoused so often: why share data with people who might prove you wrong?
bugs, you are still going on about McIntyre even after matthu has pointed out to you that this issue is between Jonathan Jones and UEA.
PaulM (Comment #78102)
June 28th, 2011 at 7:08 am
bugs, you are still going on about McIntyre even after matthu has pointed out to you that this issue is between Jonathan Jones and UEA.
—————————
Well, I don’t know about that. Read the history on CA.
Do not duck Bugs….I am waiting for your answer!
George Tobin (Comment #78100)
June 28th, 2011 at 7:03 am
I don’t think there is anything to hide, I don’t think McIntyre thinks they are hiding anything. It’s just a procedural war in which the UAE don’t see why they should give a self important twat who’s sole objective seems to be to attack and defame as many scientists as he can anything more than they have to. The other temperature records are consistent with the same warming narrative, even Watts has had to concede that, self motivated individuals such as Zeke confirm it. The difference is that people like Zeke can go out and do the hard yards without endless casting aspersions at individuals and making snide implications of incompetence or conspiracy to defraud. McIntyre likes to do it the hard way, let him enjory it. He also completely misses that point that replicating science does not mean wrote duplication of someone elses work. Doing that only opens you up to making the same mistakes they made. Replicating means doing the hard yards yourself. As Zeke demonstrated, it’s not that hard to do it yourself. For all the years McIntyre has carried on like a spoilt child that didn’t get a pony for Christmas, Zeke has come up with a temperature record with zero fuss and no need to spend endless hours berating people and arranging mass write ins of FOI requests. All the information he needed was readily available.
“why they should give a self important twat who’s sole objective seems to be to attack and defame as many scientists as he can anything more than they have to.”
OK lucia, I get moderated for asking rhetorical questions about kittens, but you let bugs mindlessly slam a guy with whom you’ve broke bread? I get that I’m annoying and offensive… what about bugs?
Andrew
I looked after a King Charles spaniel bitch for a week at one time. The dog was totally fixated on a totally disgusting tennis ball she ‘retrieved’ every waking moment. No other activity would do, she had to roll that ball down the stairs then take it back to the top, to push it over the top and… You get the idea. Total obsession.
Reminds me ,ore than a little of Bugs obsession with McIntyre.
@bugs (Comment #78105)
“a self important twat”
Obviously I asked the wrong person a question if that is the level of his argument!
Does anyone else find Bugs throwing all his toys out of the pram at once highly amusing?, especially given the targeting scatter!
Lucia has shown that the GCM multi model mean is now 4 σ, and rising, in error
Other than under your collar, where’s the warming?
http://http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/noaa-may-cooler-than-april/
There are intellectual property rights because Sweden is trying to sell the temperature records on the internet (which has been extremely successful financially everywhere it has been tried) (and Sweden doesn’t want other country’s armies to know how cold it gets there in the winter).
Trinidad and Tobago has intellectual property rights because it doesn’t want people to know the average high in the winter is only 20C, not 22C as they advertise in tourism promotions.
Cru has intellectual property rights because of mining rights (grants from the US DOE and the US NSF).
Andrew_KY
For some reason, bugs doesn’t manage to derail conversations.
Bugs,
Not only is your comment insulting and childish (calling someone a ‘twat’), it is factually incorrect. Steve McIntyre has posted lots of interesting technical work on his blog, as well as published some relevant papers in the peer reviewed literature (the most recent as a coauthor of O’Donnell et al).
.
I note that you, bugs, have never offered even the smallest technical contribution, but prefer to instead to appeal to authorities and post unfounded critiques on subjects you do not understand. The fact that you are unable to understand much of the technical content of Steve McIntyre’s blog does not mean that content is not often very insightful…. the limitation is yours, not his.
.
Has Steve McIntyre become frustrated with the stonewalling on withheld data by some climate scientists? For sure. And I am certain those climate scientists are quite frustrated with him. The animosity is evident on both sides. But your ‘contribution’ #78105 is irrelevant to the issue at hand: climate scientists have often withheld data that they are obliged to disclose according to FOI laws and according to journal rules. The solution is simple: just produce the data.
bugs:
That is part of it though. I some times go through a paper re-deriving all of the equations (and I have colleagues who do the same thing with my papers).
For a theory/modeling paper, I’m not sure what you would learn if you didn’t do something approaching this (at least on key equations). It’s why mistakes get found sometimes after a paper goes to print, and papers get withdrawn…the reviewers aren’t generally required to do a complete rederivation of the authors work.
There’s even been experimental papers where I wrote the author for (and received) their data, because I wanted to process it myself. Outside of climate science, I don’t even know of any examples where people who requested data were refused it.
I don’t need a climate model to say there’s about a 100% chance that laypeople like yourself shouldn’t be giving lectures on how the scientific process works. You’re clueless and you’re just mindlessly defending behavior that nobody reasonably should be defending.
“For some reason, bugs doesn’t manage to derail conversations.”
Surely he convinces with every contribution?
/rhetoric off
🙂
George Tobin (Comment #78100) June 28th, 2011 at 7:03 am
What’s to hide? Sloppiness? Questionable tweaks?
Sloppiness and questionable tweaks always make good candidates.
And back on topic –
At last, a sensible and solid judgement on the appalling behaviour of UEA/CRU. And one that notably three “Inquiries” failed to provide.
Way to go ICO!!
bugs (Comment #78105):
McIntyre doesn’t want to build his own global temperature record from scratch (IMO)
He wants the UAE data so he can double-check the work that UAE did in putting together their global temperature record (IMO).
It is hard to audit the work if you don’t know how the work was done – and that is why he needed the data.
Now it is ok for you to say that McIntyre doesn’t need to audit UAE’s work – but the law says it is ok for McIntyre to ask for and receive the data he (and Dr. Jones) requested.
I for one look forward to the various analysis that will be forthcoming after the data is released.
Should be interesting – and I have no doubt that whatever we learn, it will be helpful to the entire field to get the information out about how the data was processed.
Lucia
Don’t let the site debase itself by allowing Bugs to throw offensive names such as “Tw**” at other contributors. Is this term only offensive on my side of the Atlantic?
I’m no prig myself and do unfortunately use bad language at times, but not in scientific discussion.
E
Edbhoy–
I usually don’t read bugs stuff…. I’ll block that word.
bugs,
Did you mean to say twit? The word you used is slang for something it’s extremely unlikely that Steve McIntyre possesses, being the wrong sex.
bugs,
The simple fact is that the UEA doesn’t have the right to refuse to give someone data based on their personality. They don’t have the right to refuse to give it to someone who wants to prove them wrong. Even if they think that person is lazy.
Sara Palin can’t keep people that hate her out of her emails. When you work for the government, you are obligated to the public, even the most obnoxious elements of it.
RickA
I think given the huge amount of time involved in the appeals process, and the fact that lots has happened since the original request was made, the most important feature of the ruling is the ruling itself.
That is: Contrary to bugs grousing about procedural aspect is important. Agencies and scientists at public agencies need to understand that the really do have to share data and not just provide series of endless stupid ridiculous concocted excuses. If they think they have a reason, they need to really show they have a real justification for denying that-which-they-wish not to provide and not just some made up hypothetical claim that might possibly become a reason under some nearly unimaginable set of circumstances.
Also, the amount of chuckling involved in reading the whole things– what with the Judge’s ruling using the data provided to support the claim that all the data are available as evidence to discount the IP claims: That’s priceless. Bugs may not like it, but it all being in one place and written by a judge in apparently “neutral” language. Just priceless.
Incompetence is a relative measure. My pediatrician may be well-qualified to treat my child’s strep throat and wholly incompetent to do brain surgery. The lawyer with the office in the strip mall may be competent to handle an uncontested divorce or DUI, but you wouldn’t want him to defend you before the SEC, FTC or EPA.
Phil Jones and his friends at CRU and team members around the world have demonstrated repeatedly that they are in way over their heads when it comes to performing science of a quality sufficient for the world’s governments to impose draconian restrictions on the lives, liberty and property of billions of people.
“Phil Jones and his friends at CRU and team members around the world have demonstrated repeatedly that they are in way over their heads when it comes to performing science of a quality sufficient…”
Phil Jones and friends may be 100% correct in his conclusions. To me the point is that there is no way to know. He only wants to release his data to people that want to show him to be right, which doesn’t prove if his conclusions are right or wrong.
What it does show however is that his methods are wrong. That he has failed to apply the scientific method and thus his conclusions cannot be trusted as the basis for further work or for policy decisions.
The problem is that a lot of climate science is based on Phil Jones and the conclusions in his papers. As a result, lots of public policy is also based on Phil Jones and the conclusions in his papers. A lot of this policy affects the allocation of trillions of dollars in resources and the futures of billions of people on the planet.
All of this science, all of this policy, all the trillions of dollars, the future of billions of lives, resting on faulty methodology that failed to meet the basic principles of the scientific method. And the failure of the scientists and universities involved to uphold the scientific method.
bugs:
Is bugs such an orthodox Consensus groupie that he thinks the FOI statutes should have a loyalty clause? — you only get the documents if (a) you are a Party member and/or(b) swear use the material only to advance the cause of the Party; and (c) Promise never to check the work of Party members?
It is also now clear to me that “defame” has a different meaning for bugs than it does for law school graduates. Noticing that a published work has flawed or incomplete conclusions or that it is based in inadequate or flawed data is “defamation” if the work has been endorsed by the Consensus, but “science” if the criticized work is disfavored by the Consensus.
stan (Comment #78141)
June 28th, 2011 at 9:37 am
..when it comes to performing science of a quality sufficient for the world’s governments to impose draconian restrictions on the lives, liberty and property of billions of people.”
———————————-
Now we are getting down to core issues (or should I say core fears?)
ferd,
All of this science, all of this policy, all the trillions of dollars, the future of billions of lives, resting on faulty methodology that failed to meet the basic principles of the scientific method. And the failure of the scientists and universities involved to uphold the scientific method.
——————————————–
Everyone’s an expert on the scientific method except the climate scientists themselves.
“highly speculative exercise”
seems to be what they (some of them, anyway) do best
If you’re blocking the word “tw*t”, any chance you could block the word “narrative” at the same time?
“Everyone’s an expert on the scientific method except the climate scientists themselves.”
Owen,
I suspect you haven’t done any “climate science” yourself either, so welcome aboard H.M.S. The Same Boat.
Andrew
>At 14:17 12/11/2009, Thorne, Peter (Climate Research) wrote:
> >Phil, attached is a draft letter. We were keen to keep it as short,
> >sweet and uncomplicated as possible without skipping over important
> >details. Shorter, simpler, requests are more likely to get read and
> >acted upon was the specific advice from international relations.
> >
> >–
> >Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist Met Office Hadley Centre,
“I like paragraph 51. Surely, during deliberations, the commissioner was aware that the Dec. 1, 2009 email and letter request to seek permission to release data was sent out under pressure in the wake of climategate and that, quite plausibly, UEA’s failure to send out requests did not spring from their belief that the Met Office would get a higher response rate but from UEA inclination to maintain a fig-leaf of an excuse to not release data.”
The request request to other countries was contemplated as far back as JULY of 2009. In July we FIOAd the agreements. CRU responded by saying they were going to have to contact all the countries.
NOTHING was done ( I FIOAd it) between then and Nov 2009.
Before Nov 12th 2009 a letter was drafted. The very last email in the climategate stack has an attachment. The text of that mail, you can see above. Based on this, I figured that the attachment was a letter requesting permission to release the data. I FOIAd it. It’s the request letter.
So, the letter was written before climategate. In fact the letter is attached to the last mail in the stack.
Also, Steve’s Appeal for the data was also being denied on this day.
Put two and two together. They knew they were going to deny his appeal, so they drafted a letter requesting permission to release the data as they had promised back in July.
It becomes clear to our hacker inside UAE that steve will not get his data. So, he stops collecting the mails and hits the send button
Re: steven mosher (Jun 28 11:31),
Sorry — this n*rrative is unclear to me.
You’re saying that Peter Thorne (of the UK Met Office) sent the quoted email to Phil Jones on 12/11/09. (Back-and-forth earlier in the month is here.)
So you think the attachment was a draft of a letter to be sent by the Met Office to various nations’ weather bureau, requesting permission for the Met Office (or UEA?) to release the temperature data that had been contributed by those nations to the worldwide data set?
And you connect this request by Thorne to the pending denial of McIntyre’s FOIA request.
Is that right?
Andrew_KY (Comment #78151)
June 28th, 2011 at 10:57 am
……so welcome aboard H.M.S. The Same Boat.
———————————————
Did you hear the one about the “denier” and “believer” in the same boat? All the hot air was enough to fill the sails.
Owen:
I view this as an attempt to dismiss honest criticism through a back-end appeal to authority of the climate scientists themselves. Further it is a strawman because it tries to paint everyone who is criticizing some actions viewed as irresponsible behavior as if those actions applied to the entire group of climate scientists.
To the degree that there are people who try and paint the entire field of climate science with the irresponsible behavior of a few, that should get called out.
But the simple fact is you don’t have to be a scientist to understand the scientific method, or responsible conduct in research for that matter.
[Admittedly routine practice, like whether a scientist would seek to verbatim duplicate the results of another, might be lost on the layperson, who might decide to use expletives to describe attempts on the part of others to replicate in detail a particular manuscript’s results. I’d suggest it would be more constructive for the layperson to simply query when a scientist might decide to replicate the work of another rather than assume this isn’t part of the scientific process).]
Responsible conduct in research is a topic that any informed layperson should be able to fully understand. That’s the real point here. It’s not something that anybody needs to be an “expert” on, it’s just not that complicated.
Nature are covering the story here:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/uk_information_commissioner_or_1.html
Carrick,
Look again at Ferd’s quote: “All of this science, all of this policy, all the trillions of dollars, the future of billions of lives, resting on faulty methodology that failed to meet the basic principles of the scientific method. And the failure of the scientists and universities involved to uphold the scientific method.”
—————————————
Pure unfounded assertion. How was the methodology faulty? How did scientists and universities fail to uphold the scientific method? There seems to be nothing in the published CRU temperature record that is terribly at odds with the other methods, including Muller’s latest BEST work. This type of discourse is simply taking potshots. I don’t like to see scientists so lightly dismissed as fools. Sorry, but I don’t see it as honest criticism.
Owen – take Ferd’s comment at 78142 line by line from the top and insert your comments where you disagree.
James
“narrativeâ€? What’s wrong with the word narrative?
“The simple fact is that the UEA doesn’t have the right to refuse to give someone data based on their personality. They don’t have the right to refuse to give it to someone who wants to prove them wrong. Even if they think that person is lazy.
Sara Palin can’t keep people that hate her out of her emails. When you work for the government, you are obligated to the public, even the most obnoxious elements of it.”
Tamara is obviously right here. Of course, pretending that the UEA’s reluctance to share data with McIntyre has anything to do with the science is just mindless point scoring. McIntyre is welcome to write more papers. However, papers are usually written by people who want to get at the scientific truth. Others spend hundreds of thousands of words parsing emails because they have a different goal.
“believerâ€
Indeed. Having done no “climate science” themselves, how much of the Global Warming Story is the typical believer willing to take on faith? And why?
Andrew
Owen, in #78147, you remarked,
At #78158, Carrick offered a rebuttal to that complaint (assuming you were being sarcastic, rather than asserting that climate scientists lack expertise).
In #78164, you begin, “Pure unfounded assertion…” and take Carrick to task for interpreting your complaint as a general one.
But your complaint did come across as being general in nature. As well as being something that’s commonly asserted by supporters of the AGW Consensus position.
Did you mean it in some narrow sense that is limited to this particular FOIA request? To HADCRUT data? To all temperature data?
Perhaps it could be rephrased.
AMac,
The original comment by Ferd Berple appeared in this thread, which was discussing the required release of data by CRU. I happen to think that criticism of CRU for their apparent secrecy is well-justified. It is to everyone’s benefit that data be openly shared (after publication, of course). I think Steve McIntyre and Jonathan Jones did a good service in pursuing the open sharing of the CRU data. I viewed Ferd as taking the opportunity to pile on the CRU scientists, ostensibly for being poor scientists using invalid methodologies. This comes at the heels of a prolonged discussion related to skeptics not wanting to be demeaned by being called deniers – while at the same time a few of those skeptics still want to be able to periodically lob grenades at climate scientists.
Carrick and AMac,
Please also see my earlier comment to Stan: #78096. Same topic.
Andrew_KY (Comment #78171) June 28th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Let me paraphrase without the rhetorical questions:
Better to not ask questions nobody is going to try to answer, say plainly what you want to say, and not tick off the hostess.
Lucia,
I kind of like third person omniscient prose…. a narrative. I can’t see there is anything wrong with the word.
Owen, thanks for the reference to your #78096 upthread. I mostly agree. The multiple instrumental-temperature-record analyses that have been done (e.g. by Zeke, CCC, Ron Broberg, Steve Mosher, Jeff Id, other independent parties) largely agree with one another. They are useful in understanding which unknowns (e.g. UHI, discontinuities, instrument changes, and other adjustments) might affect the results, and by how much. Overall, they strongly suggest that the record of rising temperatures over the past century is robust. They put fairly narrow quantitative bounds on what the “real” regional and global rises have been.
There have been controversies in this area, obviously. Most severely with analysis of Chinese records, IIRC. Presumably, transparency will help to resolve such issues.
I think other aspects of the Consensus AGW position rest on more shaky ground. No surprise that I would hold that opinion.
I’m willing to bet money that Bugs is Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann or Tamino or Chris Colose, one of a plethora of losers. Owen is also obviously someone also I believe.
Anyway Bugs, I holding a global cooling workshop in the middle of December and I hope you’ll be attending. We’re going to turn the heat off and open the windows and tell everyone how cold it is, you freaking moron.
@Lucia
I’m wondering if you can tell me how you handled this major inconvenient fact. In 1988 when Hansen testified and they shut the a/c off and opened the windows…how did you purge this from your memory? In fact, I’d like Bugs and Owen to answer this one too because I know they’ve got plenty of paint in those buckets to whitewash the story.
Predictions of Bugs and Owens excuses:
Owen: Well big oil showed a picture of a person and they looked happy.
Bugs: This is a denialist talking point, invented by Steve Mc
Lucia: I don’t care. I see no evil and hear no evil.
Owen: Big oil killed my family.
Bugs: The windows were opened to simulate the melting ice!
Lucia: I still don’t care.
Owen: right wing think tanks invented this story.
Bugs: the Coch brothers are lavishly funding false talking points.
Lucia: Dr. Cadbury aka Shoosh (Just so you know since you pointed that out, some jerk at realclimate that goes here linked to your page and I got booted) I’m going to have to moderate you if this continues.
Dr. Cadbury: Oh it will, Lucia! And one day I’ll be on Special Report with Geraldo Rivera discussing the hoax I’ve exposed!
Dr. Jay– If you are holding a workshop are you going to tell us where it will be held? Some people might like to come and bring popcorn.
I’m surprised to read anyone didn’t know “Dr. Cadbury Ph.D.” = “Dr. Shooshmon Ph.D.”
@Lucia
I have to wait 5 minutes before every comment!
(Dr. Cadbury, phd. slams fist into wall, headbutts sidewalk 2 times, walks away in furious anger).
Yes. You have to wait.
Dr. Cadbury, PhD, Doctor of Philosophy, etc.,
The sidewalk head butts explain a lot.
Bugs,
It’s just a procedural war in which the UAE don’t see why they should give a self important twat who’s sole objective seems to be to attack and defame as many scientists as he can anything more than they have to.
Let me esplain how all successful insurgencies eventually win.
Insurgencies by definition are under funded and under manned.
Their ‘tool’ is public opinion. All insurgents will carry out ‘irritating’ militarily irrelevant operations that force the government to either resort to collective punishment or expend enormous sums weeding out the insurgents.
So Mr Anti-Climate change insurgent keeps asking for data..and for certain he’ll go thru it with a fine tooth comb…so he is denied the data…in the process of denying him the data the data is also denied to everyone else. Collective Punishment.
Score one for the insurgent.
I’m always amazed at the number of ‘climate activists’ that refer to the ‘climate war’ that have absolutely no clue as to how wars are won and lost.
Jonathan Jones (the physics prof who filed the FOIA request and appeal) has commented at ClimateAudit. Here is his fourth point.
His other remarks are also germane to this thread.
Yet again we have an investigation (4th this time?) that essentially says that there was no deliberate atempt to hide data, and no evidence of tamperingof that data. That there were mistakes in releasing information and unintended obfuscation was self-evident last year! So what’s new?
The problem with not releasing data is that it feeds directly into the common conspiracy theory arguments raised by the right wing. You would think that climate scientists would have realized how widespread such beliefs are.
The really odd thing is that the people who most push the data release arguments (Like McIntyre and mosher) are definitely not conspiracy theorists and generally eschew those arguments. Yet, their primary arguments against “climate science” as an institution are exactly the sort of rhetoric that most encourages and incites cries of conspiracy. And these arguments are also the weakest when it comes to making their case scientifically.
Well, it’s interesting to me, anyway.
Mike McClory (Comment #78192)
June 28th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Yep. Other than refusing to release data that they were supposed to release by law, nothing wrong what-so-ever.
“no deliberate atempt to hide data”
Yes of course – I see it now! – it was accidental non disclosure!
Mike McClory (Comment #78192)
The ICO did not look at tampering of (sic) that data. Your point of an investigation shows you do not understand what the investigation was about.
What the ICO found, in that they noted that the reasons were unsupportable, was that UEA did not meet the timeline required. So yes, they were trying and succesfully ,so far, hiding the data and to date have done so. And ICO found this improper. Warned them continuing could result in contempt.
So what’s new. Nothing, investigations that are not investigations as reccommended, but some claim they were despite untrue or lack of findings as was claimed, and this is not understood by some. Investigations that are investigations as reccommended, and findings that are true, still, not understood by some.
Lucia has it right. It is a delicious read. It is more so now that you have confirmed that reading ability does not translate to understanding. But you do increase the irony.
Re: Boris (Jun 28 17:08), Boris what scientific case have I made?
1. I think code and data should be open ( science process)
2. I think institutions should be accountable to their own rules ( goverance)
3. I think the temperature record is reliable, but the confidence is overstated.
4. I think sensitivity is more likely to be less than 3c than to be greater than 3C
Re: AMac (Jun 28 11:49),
Chronology:
In July aug 2009; CRU announces intention to seek consent using MET
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
Nov12 09: Back and forth between thorn and Jones. There is an attachment.
Nov13: McIntyre’s Appeal is denied.
Mail is no longer collected.weekend comes 14th 15th
Nov 17th Files posted.
Early december, I decide to FOIA the attachment because I want to claim
in the book that the last mail conatins an attachment about the consent
Book is published Jan 12
Sometime later I get the attachment. It was the letter I suspected. The request letter.
I request all communication about getting consent. Jones did nothing between Jul and Nov to get consent.
Think about how the request for consent and the FOIA appeal play together
read what the appeal officer wrote.
Too many things happening together. FOIA denial, consent letter,
Busy, coding.. need to sort it out..
Owen,
Thanks for the softball. If you don’t understand how taxes and regulations restrict lives, liberty and property, how about we explain it in terms that children can understand. Does climate science research have the potential to impact far more people than pharma research for any particular specialty drug? Of course. Does climate research have the potential to affect more people than might invest in one of the mining company prospectuses that Steve Mc has discussed? Of course.
So is it really asking too much for climate scientists to make some small effort toward quality control? No one expects that they can reach the level of quality of a drug study, but perhaps some day, with hard work, they might even make it to the quality level of a geological survey in a mining prospectus. But given the complete absence of any quality control in e.g. Jones’ use of Chinese data in his UHI study, that’s a long, long way to go.
Boris:
That is “a problem” but not the “only problem.” It is bad science period, and when you do execute anything poorly, especially something this publicly, then that has a derogatory effect on one’s reputation. (Sucking at what you do does make you an puff target.)
stan:
Not that I think drug studies do that great a job either. Rigorous metrology work in the physical sciences is the standard I would hold up any other experimental/observational science to.
stan (Comment #78201)
June 28th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
“But given the complete absence of any quality control in e.g. Jones’ use of Chinese data in his UHI study, that’s a long, long way to go.”
——————————————–
I’ll look into this Chinese issue in some detail since it has been also mentioned by AMac. My general rule is this: as long as the CRU temperature record agrees with GISS and NOOA, as well as with the satellite series by UAH and RSS, I tend to trust the methods used. Preliminary results of Richard Muller’s BEST study of the global temperature record agrees closely with CRU and the others (http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/48204/berkeley-1.jpg). The Berkeley project used top scientists and latest statistical methods. I see no reason at this time to doubt the work of Jones and his group at CRU, but I will look up information on the Chinese UHI issue and will await the full study from Muller’s group.
In this thread, two issues have become conflated – the release of CRU data under FOIA and the quality of research done by CRU in constructing an average global temperature record. While I am sure that problems raised by Anthony Watts and others regarding the station quality and other issues like UHI estimates may be locally true, they seem to have little effect on the final global product. The remarkable agreement between satellite tropospheric anomalies and surface-based measurements, two completely different methodologies, provides stunning cross-collaboration of the average global temperature record. There is a lot of background noise about this issue, that gets many people excited, but I have seen no compelling evidence that the temperature record is not solid.
Owen
Of course. That’s because there are always people who want to change the subject from a topic they would rather not discuss to one they would prefer to discuss.
It seems to me the bugs (Comment #78087) was the first to conflate by trying to derail the thread by introducing the notion that the ruling doesn’t matter because it doesn’t refute the science. He then tries to change the topic to the accuracy of the temperature record in bugs (Comment #78105) . And then, while others are trying to get bugs to return to the subject of the post, Owen (Comment #78096) decides to follow bugs’ lead. Conflation achieved! 🙂
If you want the conflation to stop, then try to avoid taking up bugs attempts at changing the topic. I suspect he’s actually a ‘bot programmed to try to change the topic, but he does sometimes succeed.
Owen, sharing your data with other groups is part of the scientific process. Keep in mind the scientific process is more than just a particular experimental method used for discovery of new knowledge, generally it’s the process by which scientific discovery gets shared and assimilated into the “scientific corpus”.
Scientists who are not open and transparent find their efforts getting ignored and sidestepped. It’s easy enough to demonstrate, simply repeat the other effort, but make your results freely available. Your work gets quoted and reused, theirs’ often becomes a footnote.
A Lack of transparency is a hobble not only to your competitors, but to yourself.
ditto carrick.
Carrick 78203 writes “Rigorous metrology work in the physical sciences is the standard I would hold up any other experimental/observational science to.” Yes, something like a National Bureau of Standards is in the top of the tree. It’s different because the drive is to get the answer to more and more accuracy, not to more and more preconception.
Before people rush to print about the Berkeley BEST project, remember that the preliminary statement was made at short notice on 2% of the data and had many caveats. You might wonder why the final report is not out yet. Having had some informal input to the project, I’d say that the deeper level problems are proving time consuming to comprehend and compute.
Before one gets comfortable with the similarity of global temperature calculations, keep in mind that many are derived from single country data sets, the same set for each calculation authority, which might or might not have been adjusted beforehand. That’s why a cross check is important. Remember this graph forever and it will help your comfort level:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/spaghetti%20Darwin.jpg
“I have seen no compelling evidence that the temperature record is not solid.”
Okay and that’s quite an opinion. They closed more surface stations than they opened originally. The way that I look at the surface stations is that there should be enough to cover every square foot of the earth. If not, simply fill in a question mark for areas you do not have a measurement. Filling in numbers like what is being done now is bogus.
The other element that gets lost in the discussion is we’re talking about massively complex things in nature and I can almost guarantee you several values like the radiative forcing of co2 are horribly wrong. We really have no idea how accurate some of these numbers are.
re: supposed conflation of two issues.
Anyone who has read Harry’s file understands that the issue of competence applies to the quality of the temperature data at CRU.
Additionally, evidence which raises questions about the competence with which someone conducts an important part of their professional work is always appropriate for use in raising the question as to competence in a different, but closely related, part of their professional work. If Jones was clearly sloppy in his use of data while doing a critical study (with his name on it), is it not appropriate to wonder if perhaps the same sloppiness might apply to his use of data for CRU? Especially after reading Harry?
Re: stan (Jun 29 09:41),
The only problem with reading harry is PROVENANCE.
there is nothing whatsoever to forensically tie anything in the harry readme to ACTUAL output of CRU.
what is needed is the actual files. The files before harry touched them, the files after harry touched them. Then you have to show that harry’s work ACTUALLY made it into the final product.
As it stands there is no evidence that harry’s work ever amounted to anything that CRU published. So you have a snap shot of a very messy process. You dont know wheter it got better or worse.
Here is what you do know: You know that despite of or because of harry, the answer CRU gives matches, GISS, JeffId, Zeke, Me, Tamino, Ron Broberg, And the 2% Best.
That’s all you know. They had a frustrated programmer. you dont know what became of his work. you know outputs match the outputs of others.
Here’s a secret. You can made loads of errors in calculating a Global average and they never show up in he final answer. N rules.
Carrick (Comment #78207)
June 28th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Owen, sharing your data with other groups is part of the scientific process. Keep in mind the scientific process is more than just a particular experimental method used for discovery of new knowledge, generally it’s the process by which scientific discovery gets shared and assimilated into the “scientific corpusâ€. A Lack of transparency is a hobble not only to your competitors, but to yourself.
——————————
I agree, completely. I am an advocate of complete openness in data sharing. I don’t agree, however, that the overly-secretive behaviour of the people at CRU is indirect evidence for poor methodology in measuring an average global temperature.
Stan and Mosher,
OK, who is Harry and where can I read his file?
Re: Owen (Jun 29 16:28), a crap, you need a copy of the whole climategate files. RC covered the issue pretty well.
its a waste of time.
Mosh,
Unless CRU is even more screwed up than I think, I can’t believe for a moment that they would pay someone to screw around with code for such a long period of time, if they knew the code was irrelevant. Nor can I believe that Harry himself would get so exercised over something that had no purpose.
The leaker who provided both Harry’s file and the e-mails now has a track record. We know the e-mails he provided were genuine and relevant. Given that, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on the question of whether the record of poor Harry’s anguish was genuine and germane to the work CRU was doing.
In the end, the answer to the question of Harry’s file’s legitimacy is in CRU’s hands. They knew that Harry’s file was a huge black eye for them. They had within their control the ability to set the world straight. Yet, they allow the question to remain unanswered. So simple for them to respond, but they didn’t come forward to provide the evidence to support claims such as yours.
You can draw your own conclusions, but the presumption here clearly works against CRU. If they could exonerate themselves from the huge black eye, it would be stupid of them not to do so. They didn’t. The most logical conclusion, therefore, is that they cannot. Harry is most likely legit.
Owen
Harry was a frustrated programmer who expressed his thoughts in comments in a program. That program was contained in the cru leak. This is PJ media’s version.
I don’t know where the online repository of climategate emails is anymore, but the PJ medias article should give you enough informaiton to find the right file if you find the repository url.
Here is a site that has the original zip for download along with ftp directories of individual files and emails. He also has extensive commentary on the emails.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
re: Boris (Comment #78170)
” … Others spend hundreds of thousands of words parsing emails because they have a different goal.”
When you get past your mistaken attribution of skeptics goals you will become more effective at arguing your side.
Everyone is wired a little different. The way some of us are wired, we just want to see the data. When people make claims about what data says, and then refuse to provide the data, in my professional experience, that data often does not support their claims. The best way to defend the claims to me is to release the data. To me, the path UEA chose to take is most suspicious.
Please straighten me out on this. It is my understanding that the satellite records were originally calibrated to the land record. If so, arguing that the land record is OK because it agrees with the satellite record is bogus. I must be missing something simple.
I also believe that this is how Jones’ Chinese UHI garbage has corrupted the whole process. Help.
==============