Jeff Id posted interesting email forwarded to him by Jonathan Leake. Jeff’s made a number observations of his own. The line that jumped out at me was this:
Mr Holland’s FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act.
Notice the date? 2007/2008.
Recall the mantra of those defending CRU’s gyrations to avoid complying with FOI claims that CRU’s intransigence was the result of a flood of pesky FOI’s. In reality, intransigence by climate scientists preceded the flurry of FOI’s. As many of us filling FOI’s in 2009 to identify which countries had forbidden disclosure of data are aware, our requests were motivated by
a) the desire to obtain data so that, over time, it could be analyzed, and the validity of time series like HadCRUT would be verified and
b) refusals by climate scientists to provide information, having for years had shown themselves unwilling to comply with the laws governing FOI’s.
The MET office, CRU — and other agencies subject to FOI– might do well to understand that if they are perceived to be violating FOI, members of the public will turn to the FOI itself to try to obtain information that will help them better craft requests that will force result in release of data that ought to be public in the first place. Had the unauthorized disclosure (hack or leak) of the climategate emails not made the intransigence of climate scientists and illegal behavior public, the number of FOI’s might well have risen further as various individuals tried to obtain information required to wordsmith the perfect FOI that would finally manage to spring the data.
Handling these perfectly legal, valid requests would have been costly for CRU and British tax payers. Because the requests were only made necessary as a climate science institutions refusal to properly follow the FOI act, the guilt for these unnecessary costs would accrue to those intentionally violating FOI: That is CRU, The Met office or others, who intentionally chose to act in spend the public’s time and money to avoid complying with FOI statutes.
As bad as wasting the public’s money, those refusing data requested under FOI have done something worse. As the public learns the truth about the timeline regarding intransigence vis-a-vis FOI, their trust in findings by climate scientist erodes. Even those with little scientific background understand that self-correcting nature of science requires a high degree of transparency and openness. Consequently, learning that some climate scientists are so secretive they would violate FOI from the very start merely to keep the process by which they obtain their results opaque to outsiders has been eye-opening to many.
Will this admission by the ICO press officer that climate scientists’ intransigence dates as far back as 2007 silence those who claim CRU scientists motives for refusing data stemmed from FOI requests received in 2009? Maybe not. Activists like to spin, and silly details like actual dates may not make them drop the ridiculous mantra when speaking on blogs, radios or television programs.
But I suspect attentive investigations in Parliament and in police will recognize that FOI violations in 2007 could not have been caused by FOI requests filed in 2009! Many in the press and public will figure this out too.
Update 1/27: Edited to reflect the 2007/2008 requests may not have been sent to CRU.
Update 1/27: 4:44 p, Note: It appears Holland’s FOI letter was, in fact, sent to “David Palmer, Information Policy Officer, Information Services Directorate University of East Anglia,N orwich” and requested “all documents held by CRU relating to Dr Briffa’s participation in the IPCC, 2007 assessment reports.” So, it is CRU documents that were requested.
I have to be on the road for today so let me anticipate and respond to bugs:
bugs, you have missed the point..again..etc.
I am surprised that the authorities have not raised the issue of conspiracy. (It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.) If I refuse the comply with a lawful FOI request in the UK I am subject to rather mild contempt sanctions only if the UK FOI authorities want to go to the trouble to go before a judge. But if I go around encouraging others to refuse lawful compliance, that’s conspiracy, a charge with a different statute of limitations and a basis for a criminal complaint all by itself.
I have no desire to criminalize this fiasco. I just wonder why there hasn’t been a little more saber-rattling by those who are supposed to enforce these provisions.
The same pattern exists with our FOIA to NOAA for the IPCC comments.
Steve asks the IPCC for reviewer comments. They stall tell him
he can arrange a visitation with his comments in Harvards library.
He presses them and then send him a copy.. but with restrctions.
He does an FOIA to NOAA.
more of us pile on.
Presto the file which was supposed to be OPEN from the start
is finally opened.
Then of course they whine about abuse of FOIA.
I never use this URL thingy. hows it work
Steven– Do you mean the CA assistant URL thingie? I just intalled the CA Assitant and uploaded the changes to my comment file Pete sent me. So… I don’t know. I’m planning to announced tomorrow, after I check features so I can tell people. (I’ll need to see if WordPress strips tags etc. If so, I may need to fix that.)
For the URL thinking… click the link icon. A box appears, entering “http://rankexploits.com/musings” and clicking ‘ok’. The next step is obvious. 🙂
Tests:underline , 
.
x2, x2,less than <,
strikeout,Today we laugh about CRU, GISS and the climate scientists. If they continue their brave work, we will laugh about CERN in a few years.
Re: lucia (Jan 27 12:55),
CA Assistant is the bomb. Now if you could fix it so killfile worked here too (instead of just at The Air Vent)…
DeWitt–
If you want killfile to work here, you’ll have to encourage the script developer to make whatever extensions are required. Alternatively, if there are instructions to blogger to help us make it work at our blogs, point me to them. If they are easy to implement, I will. If difficult… well.. no. (Easy means someone gives me the link. The process has fewer than 3 steps, and when I try it, it works. )
“Will the objective report by the Norfolk police showing CRU intransigence dates as far back as 2007”
Lucia, the facts seem to be fuzzy here. I can’t even see it said that Mr Holland’s request was directed at CRU. But it isn’t an objective report by Norfolk police – it’s an email from an ICO person saying they will study what the Norfolk police have to say (when and if they do).
It isn’t clear who didn’t handle the 2007/8 requests properly, or what their failing was.
Nick–
You’re right. Holland sent a request to the Met Office. I’d just finished correcting and updating when I read your comment. It doesn’t really matter to the argument, but it is best not to say “Cru” when it’s “the met office”. But thanks!
I don’t know how your issue about who wrote this is important. Do you have any reason to believe the ICO is incorrect when he says ” they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act.”
Nick,
http://climateaudit.org/2008/06/20/fortress-cru-2/
WRT the violation, ICO may be pointing to the fact that the grounds that Palmer and Jones made up, the mails are confidential, were the wrong grounds for refusal. They may also be pointing to the fact that Ammann didnt indicate that his mails were confidential. They may be pointing to the fact that Jones requested that the mails be deleted BEFORE the refusal was granted. who knows. They may be pointing to the fact that the case was handled on the basis of who was making the request and that the well was poisoned by Jones by prior behavior.
Should be fun. Anyways the big issue will come with the investigation by parliment. Gosh, and all because they wanted to get a single paper in Ch 06. That’s a lot of grief to defend mann.
I bet briffa is wishing he had more spine earlier and just followed the rules.
Well, Steve, I recieved; and read yours and Fuller’s book. It was a good read. I had to laugh when I read the last paragraph and thought about those “alarmists” who attacked it as a “denialist” treatsie without bothering to read it.
Ok, Back on thread. One of the opinions I had when I looked at the emails about Yamal and larches, was that when someone had a reasonable tactic that somehow did not involve an attack or subterfuge, there seemed to be little team support. Briffa seemed to consistantly run into this problem, and it appeared to often frustrate him. I have seen this before. The persons have programmed themselves into a certain attack/defense response. As the old saw goes, “Every problem looks like a nail, when the only tool in your box is a hammer.” I think this is what the FOI reveiw will show. The team could not sustain a coherent response but the ones that they had already embarked on. That half or more of the entrenchment was they started the course as a team, but as a team could not change it. This would allow the most vocal or “bullying” to maintain the status quo in excess of what their position should have influenced.
Lucia:
“But I suspect attentive investigations in Parliament and in police will recognize that FOI violations in 2007 could not have been caused by FOI requests filed in 2009! Many in the press and public will figure this out too.”
You may have more faith in public servants than I do, Lucia. Remember the guy who tried to turn Bernie Madoff in to the SEC for years and years. He had modeled Madoff’s investment method and found that there was no way that it could work. When he testified to Congress he said something to the effect of – you could ship the entire staff of the SEC to Fenway Park for an afternoon and they couldn’t find first base.
yes lucia it was CRU and MET.
MET for mitchell and CRU for briffa et al.
Dont listen to Nick about these things. Plus if Nick had read the mails he would see jones et al mentioning Holand by name,
mocking him, etc.
Steve:
“I bet briffa is wishing he had more spine earlier and just followed the rules.”
Under the heading of bets to be placed, I’m thinking that 2010 will see one of the team members break rank and declare that there is no climate emergency. I don’t know who it will be, but Briffa is a possible candidate.
This email from him makes me think that he was, at least to some degree, chaffing at where Mann and Jones were leading.
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. â€
This makes me think that it’s more than just not following the rules for Briffa. He also doesn’t sound like he ever completely bought into the whole narrative. And he’s the guy who published one of the first papers on the tree ring proxy divergence problem. You know that Mann would never have let that cat out of the bag if he didn’t have to. Anyone know if Briffa is still suffering from health issues?
Yes John.
I had to laugh at the alarmists who attacked it without reading.
You know those people who disbelieve in global warming are a lot more reasonable than folks on the other side. we search for common ground ( open science) and let go of our differences.
But the religion of global warming is a harsh frickin church.
WRT the rest of your post. As I read the mails ( reread all the mails between May 27th 2008 and June 23rd ) it look like Palmer preordained the response: we will deny on grounds of confidentiality. OH.. go ask ammann if he thinks his mails are confidential,, oh we need to do this by the book becuase of appeals.
Well that logic makes no sense.
It reads like Palmer has ordained that Ammann considers his mails to be confidential and has ordained that he will deny it
and anticipates an appeal. I mean if you have an open mind
you dont say “do it by the book” I expect an appeal. And you clearly dont ask ammann or briffa or anybody else if they consider their mail to be confidential. Like doh.
Steve–But it is true that I can’t know for sure whether the specific request the ICO is admitted as improperly handled went to CRU or MET. (I suspect both were mis-handled.
Anyway, I changed it around. Whether the intransigent scientists were at CRU or MET is not an important point with respect to their reaction. We know from the emails that they all communicate and are joined to the hip with respect to their machinations to avoid responding to FOI’s or releasing data, or basic information that people actually ask for.
(It’s true they release information. But they want to be the sole group to decide which information will be released. Whether they like it or not, that sort of system permits distortion since they can release what they find convenient and hold back what they find inconvenient.)
Steven Mosher,
I think we have to disagree on this point:
“You know those people who disbelieve in global warming are a lot more reasonable than folks on the other side.”
Reasonable people can view the same things and come to different conclusions – even different conclusions about the reasonableness of any particular group of people.
I see your point Steve, But Palmer was the FOI officer, not the team. Perhaps the two problems go together. If the team is unresponsive, and you are trying to save the dike, what would your response as FOI officer be? He has to represent his institution, as well as try to meet the regulation. Did the disjunct nature of the team, end up giving him the disjuncted approach? His part is the part I have the most problem understanding. The other cast, the team, is being true to form. They even know each other’s penchant to respond. Just how does Palmer fit in, or does he? Perhaps some of the talks or emails not included would allow a better conclusion/understanding. Perhaps not. Life is like that. I guess the team forgot that science, sometimes, is too.
steven mosher (Comment#31226) January 27th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
They don’t like McIntyre for some reason? Now why would that be? Anything to do with continual public denigration and abuse on his public pillory? Just maybe?
bugs : your
.
They don’t like McIntyre for some reason? Now why would that be? Anything to do with continual public denigration and abuse on his public pillory? Just maybe?
.
So, is this a valid legal excuse to ignore FOI?
.
“Not guilty Your honor, on the charge of evading a FOI request. He called me names, and he hurt my feelings, and I don’t like him, so I didn’t send the data.”
Bugs,
“They don’t like McIntyre for some reason? Now why would that be? Anything to do with continual public denigration and abuse on his public pillory? Just maybe?”
Even if this is true, it is not allowed as an excuse before the Court for breaking FOI regulations.
Unfortunately, your memory is very poor and you appear to be unable to recreate a timeline of when certain posts were made and what was actually said.
Maybe you should do your homework and research when the posts were made where you accuse Steve McI. of abusing them?? In fact, it would be interesting to see whether he actually subjected them to public denigration and abuse other than by describing the process he was subjected to and posting the e-mail exchanges.
Well? Do the homework and let’s see the links. Otherwise we must assume you are simply slandering Steve McI.
Please link to posts or other information that shows WHEN Steve started making less than complimentary posts about the Team and later the FOI process.
David Gould,
“Reasonable people can view the same things and come to different conclusions – even different conclusions about the reasonableness of any particular group of people.”
Thanks. I would hate it if Steve M. convinced people I might be reasonable!! ;>)
kuhnkat,
And as you and I are reasonable people, I am sure that we can come to agreement on how unreasonable you are. 😉
Les Johnson (Comment#31271) January 27th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
No, grounds for assesing the requests as not in good faith nor anything to do with being part of the scientific process. Which is what they were easily able to demonstrate to the FOI officer in half an hour of browsing CA. The letters show them being ready to help out any genuine requests for help or information.
lucia said January 27, 2010 at 11:09 am
Jeff–
Do you have a direct link to the source material? The link just sends me to a list of Leake’s articles. Is this letter in a comment? A blog? Where? I want to read the surrounding stuff!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/cru-inquiry-seeks-changes-in-uk-law-citing-failure-of-crus-foia-officer/
OT bible in the news (latter days)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8480637.stm
hope this helps
bugs: your
No, grounds for assesing the requests as not in good faith nor anything to do with being part of the scientific process. Which is what they were easily able to demonstrate to the FOI officer in half an hour of browsing CA.
.
Hmmm…most of the original FOI requests came from published, peer reviewed authors.
.
In the example you quoted from, SM had asked the IPCC, for the reviews, as part of his duties as an expert reviewer. The IPCC, by its own principles, was obliged to be “open and transparent.” When this was not forthcoming, the FOI requests were made.
.
You do realize that that particular request had nothing to do with UAE, right?
.
bugs (Comment#31269) January 27th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Bugs, the law says nothing about whether or not you hate the person, or if the person requesting is a lunatic or retard or child molester or an idiot named bugs.
In fact if they took any of these into consideration, and there is evidence that they did, then it would be an infraction of the law.
Kuhnkat, lets get a bit more specific than that.
In the case I talked about steve made a request of the IPCC.
So prior to this can we find any example of where steve
say nasty things about the IPCC or any individuals in the IPCC?
Nope.
The IPCC responded by saying that steve could read the reviewer comments by visiting harvard. He sent another letter. They
punted again and said they would give him a copy but he could not redistribute them.
So, he looked around and found susan solomon.
So bugs will have to find an instance before 2007 when
Mcintyre said nasty things about her or NOAA.
In the end they gave us the data.
My point was this. You will note that bugs didnt address my point.
My point was they cost themselves more money and more bad PR by denying a reasonable request. IN the end they complied.
Les Johnson (Comment#31277) January 27th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
yes the FOIA requests to UAE came from Willis ( published peer reviewed) Steve Mc (peer reviewed)
Then NOAA got 5 requests for IPCC reviewer comments.
They complied.
Then MET And CRU
Holland for correspondence
McIntyre for data.
Then when CRU LIED about the confidentiality agreements
saying the restricted release to “academics” ( the appeal found that this was BOGUS) then and only then after they LIED
about 50 of us FOIED them.
They brought it on themselves
David Gould (Comment#31262) January 27th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
“Steven Mosher,
I think we have to disagree on this point:
“You know those people who disbelieve in global warming are a lot more reasonable than folks on the other side.â€
Reasonable people can view the same things and come to different conclusions – even different conclusions about the reasonableness of any particular group of people.”
I’ll just say its my experience. fair enough.
John F. Pittman (Comment#31266) January 27th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
I respect your ability to read things closely. To date I’m the only person I know who has tried to make sense ( in a close reading sense) what the heck the mails from May27th to June 23rd
mean ( the FOIA related ones) other than people just throwing out the “delete your mails” It really is an interesting series of mails. I took my shot at it.
Tilo
Nobody including me has told the whole Briffa Mann Jones
love triangle story. hehe.
This email from him makes me think that he was, at least to some degree, chaffing at where Mann and Jones were leading.
So let me start by saying that I read the mails like a novel.
gravitys rainbow is a good paradigm or tristram shandy.
I can go on and on about this but wont.
Anyways the mann jones briffa relationship is great.
Big mystery: feb 21 2005 Briffa forwards abunch of negative
editorilas about mann to Jones. No comment. just a load of them
Mann is slamed for not sharing data.
1. mann has told everyone he feels beseiged.
2. mann says he cant do it alone anymore.
3. Jones is trying to make peace between mann and briffa
Briffa forward the editorials.
WHY? is he saying “mike needs help”
or “what a liability!”
either way on the same day Jones finally answers Warwick hughes request: ” NO you cant have the data, your a skeptic”
Is jones finally picking manns side
Does jones want some of those headlines..
thats a neat problem from a character development perspective.
steven mosher (Comment#31278) January 27th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
They checked the the FOIA rep, he okeyed it. You will have to take it up with him, not them.
Big mystery: feb 21 2005 Briffa forwards abunch of negative
editorilas about mann to Jones. No comment. just a load of them
Mann is slamed for not sharing data.
1. mann has told everyone he feels beseiged.
2. mann says he cant do it alone anymore.
3. Jones is trying to make peace between mann and briffa
Briffa forward the editorials.
You take the systemic abuse and denigration of scientists as pretty well how it is presented at CA and WUWT, entertainment akin to bear baiting. And you still don’t get why scientists don’t want to play ball. The removal of personalistion of science, the need to get off your **** do your own research and not just pillory people, was recognised long ago. You are still in the scientific dark ages.
Hot of the press telegraph
“The Information Commissioner’s office ruled that UEA was in breach of the Freedom of Information Act – an offence which is punishable by an unlimited fine. ”
It is a prosecutable offence but due to time limit they cant we shall see…
So whoever was laughing about prosecutions….
vg (Comment#31288) January 28th, 2010 at 2:02 am
Yes, VG, they realised there were people like you out there years ago, thirsty for blood. Yet they still do their work.
Massive publicity for this story today in the UK mainstream media. The BBC, Telegraph, Times, Guardian are all reporting that UEA/CRU broke the law but it is too late to prosecute.
For the details of David Holland’s request, see “Fortress Cru” on climate audit,
http://climateaudit.org/2008/06/20/fortress-cru/
Bugs, the FOI principles are crystal clear
What’s your problem?
Jonathan (Comment#31294) January 28th, 2010 at 5:36 am
Not my problem, the FOI officer made the call.
Just in case there is any doubt about where the blame lies, check out 1228412429.txt
> Ben,
> When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
> by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a
> screen, to convince them otherwise
> showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the
> types of people we were
> dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the
> Environmental Sciences school
> – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.
….
> Cheers
> Phil
As Jonathan says, the law is crystal clear, so whatever Jones may have to said to the people at UEA is irrelevant, and the University authorities should have known that.
““Unless all important studies are independently verified, it cannot be said that the late 20th century warming was particularly exceptional. And especially so given that no global warming at all has occurred since 1998, a period of eight years over which atmospheric CO2 increased by 15 ppm (4%). It is crystal clear that natural causes are a possible explanation for the entire instrumental temperature record to date.”
So Holland is just your ordinary or common denier, with no credentials or understanding of the science.
“As Jonathan says, the law is crystal clear, so whatever Jones may have to said to the people at UEA is irrelevant, and the University authorities should have known that.”
The University authorities administering the FOI act were exactly that, and Jones put his case to them. They made the decision. The demands for blood just reveal what this is really all about, and has been about, from the start.
Bugs–
If the ICO has already noted that Holland’s requests were dealt with inappropriately, why do you think the FOI authorities didn’t act equally inappropriately in the later cases?
Many people pointing these issues out are not demanding blood in any sense of that idiom. They are just demanding that CRU and MET fulfill their legal obligations under FOI and that the scientists and some others in blogs and forums stop making ridiculous claims about why they are justified in violating this statute. Insisting people fulfill their obligations do what is right in not “demanding blood”.
bugs,
I’m an armchair psychologist. Can I ask you a few questions? 😉
Andrew
Interesting that bugs calls people who disagree with him “deniers”. Most of the denial that I have seen in this thread is coming from him.
Even when confronted with evidence from the horse’s mouth that Jones improperly leant on his FOI officer to break the law, he still argues that it was not Jones’s fault, or that Jones and his FOI officer don’t have to obey the law if McIntyre is not a nice man, or that only published scientists are allowed to use the FOIA.
Sceptics look at complex, poorly documented models, flawed and manipulated data sets, and wild political schemes masquerading as science, and conclude that it is very hard to tell how much the world is warming, and to what extent any warming might be caused by CO2.
Deniers or denialists look at self-evident facts, such as emails from Jones describing his own behaviour, the letter of the law, and the findings of the Information Commissioner and simply deny them.
Me: hey bugs, can I have your data to check pls?
Bugs: What for?
Me: I want to check your figures
Bugs: Get lost, why should I
Me: the law says you should
bugs: NO. I got 25 yrs invested in this and I’m not having a common no good non-scientist blogger nitpicking to find faults
Me: I’ll tell FOI
Bugs: I’ll delete rather than give ’em to you. Anyway, the FOI man works here, he’s a mate of mine.
I raised 4 kids. Sometimes you gotto explain things in a childish way so that children can understand simple concepts.
bugs: your
.
Not my problem, the FOI officer made the call.
.
So, we have Jones et al discussing, at UAE, how to EVADE FOI. Jones also demonstrates knowledge of the FOI laws.
.
We have a compliant FOI Officer at UAE, who violates the law, regarding the identity of the requester and the intended purpose.
.
We have Jones discussing how he was able to convince the FOI to ignore the requests.
.
Seems to me that this is a systemic failure at UAE. Systemic failures requires a complete restructuring of the system.
.
I gather this is your recommendation, reading your posts?
“Baa Humbug (Comment#31307) January 28th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Me: hey bugs, can I have your data to check pls?
Bugs: What for?
Me: I want to check your figures
Bugs: Get lost, why should I”
Pathetic strawman.
Re: bugs (Jan 28 15:19),
.
Bugs: your
.
Pathetic strawman.
.
Actually, what BaaHumbug was using, was parody. It wasn’t an argument. Which is what a “strawman” is.
Bugs,
That shoe fits you rather well.
Humbug,
Bugs is beyond reason.
here is something funny. When it is all said and done Its very likely that
the temperature record will stand up to an audit. That is, if
the temperature record today says 1C, after a full audit the final
answer will be somewhere between .5C and 1C. Lets just say
it ends up at .9C
Then Bugs will say ” see the science didnt change, why did you ask for the data”
And I will say “see the science didnt change, why did you allow people to believe you were a fraud and cheat and why did you feed beast of doubt”
Because the science WONT CHANGE. What MIGHT change is our understanding of the past ( reconstructions) and our projections of the future.
In the end when the history is written people will look at the refusals to provide data and code as a stupid move. A move that deepened doubt uncessarily and delayed action. When the friggin planet burns up we can blame phil jones. After all he said that he wanted no action on climate change so that his science could be proved correct. And what better way to delay action than to deny data.
Re: steven mosher (Jan 28 01:06), Steven, I was wondering that as you and Fuller wrote chapter six, did the “holes” in the FOI/EIR story leap out at you? I assume from your background that your are familiar that such regulatory vehicles have “products” and sequences that are almost always adhered to. It is the holes that led me to suggest that Palmer was acting within the constraints of the situation he found himself in. I have seen commentators speak of illegal activities etc. that I do not find likely.
Re: bugs (Jan 28 07:22), What this does is remove the unlimited fine part. The conversations indicate due diligence at making a determination, often used to negate or reduce potential fines. The legal necessity to comply is not rendered unnecessary by a poor, if it was that at all, see previous posts, advice. Instead, it means that erroneous advice was given, perhaps. Also, note that we have but one side in the emails and there are at least 5 sides to this story. Without more context, I would be reluctant to throw stones towards the FOI officer. I would not ascribe motives except such obvious questions such as wouldn’t the FOI officer be trying to support the institution in an acceptably manner. Once this question is stated and the emails read, one wonders what is going on. Wondering is not guilt on anyone’s part, except the guilt of being curious.
So Holland should re-submit the request and see if it is processed properly this time.
And submit a separate request for all communications associated with the first request. It would be interesting to see how they blocked or ignored the first request.
Stephen Mosher:
But of course the science did change… the uncertainty was reduced.
Science isn’t just about “simple numbers”, it’s also about “bounds”.
steven mosher (Comment#31384) January 28th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Humbug,
Bugs is beyond reason.
here is something funny. When it is all said and done Its very likely that
the temperature record will stand up to an audit. That is, if
the temperature record today says 1C, after a full audit the final
answer will be somewhere between .5C and 1C. Lets just say
it ends up at .9C
Then Bugs will say †see the science didnt change, why did you ask for the dataâ€
And I will say “see the science didnt change, why did you allow people to believe you were a fraud and cheat and why did you feed beast of doubtâ€
Because the science WONT CHANGE. What MIGHT change is our understanding of the past ( reconstructions) and our projections of the future.
In the end when the history is written people will look at the refusals to provide data and code as a stupid move. A move that deepened doubt uncessarily and delayed action. When the friggin planet burns up we can blame phil jones. After all he said that he wanted no action on climate change so that his science could be proved correct. And what better way to delay action than to deny data.
You are effectively insisting on rewriting the scientific method, that has to date worked well. How has it survived without your auditing skills? Does it perhaps have some other mechanism that works as a quality assurance system that doesn’t involve public abuse and victimisation? Could it even be that the QA system requires that there is no public abuse and victimisation?
bugs:
You’re just contradicted yourself….the understanding of the past is part of the science corpus. As is the projections for the future.
The science didn’t used to include huge data sets and the computer code to manage them. Now it does, so the requirement to document one’s work in a way that is, at least in principle, reproducible, may necessitate some changes.
These are not changes to the scientific method itself, but rather changes in the practical requirements needed to fulfill the scientific method.
Unfortunately or not, that cannot be guaranteed. Something which is claimed to be openly reproducible can also be openly ridiculed if it turns out not to be.
Bugs,
So your conspiracy myth is now that the planet will ‘burn up’ and it will ‘burn up’ because Phil Jones wanted it to happen so he could proven to be correct.
Do you have evidence of that from anyplace in particular?
And your confidence that the ‘SCIENCE WON’T CHANGE’…in what sense will it not change?
You think that when an audit is complete, it will show no significant change.
Why? Do you think the fix is in? Do you think the old methods of blending that bias the results towards warm are going to remain acceptable?
Or is there a Manniac algorithm to be used, that no matter the input reliably produces the desired output?
hunter,
I think that you have read the post from bugs erroneously: he is quoting a previous post. He was not the one claiming that Phil Jones will be to blame. Steven Mosher made that (imo silly) claim.
David Gould (Comment#31405) January 28th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
html error.
bugs,
Sorry. I have been busy working and finishing up “Watch the Skies!”.
The end of the book details the progression of the UFO myth into a complicated series of conspiracy myths. I am not sure where you are in your progression. Sorry about the confusion.
Carrick
“You’re just contradicted yourself….the understanding of the past is part of the science corpus. As is the projections for the future.”
Sorru let me be a bit more precise.. What might change is our confidence in our understanding.. basically it the “how much” question.
In short, radiative physics wont change if you find out that its only warmed
.8C as opposed to 1C
What would change?
1. Reconstructions would change ( calibration with current record)
2. Hindcast skill
3. Forecast skill
Clearer?
Carrick
“But of course the science did change… the uncertainty was reduced.
Science isn’t just about “simple numbersâ€, it’s also about “boundsâ€.”
Sorry, I wasnt be clear in trying to show the kind of simplistic arguments I see
when people say “nothing in the mails changes the science” or What does it matter if the record is off by .1C
Hunter
“So your conspiracy myth is now that the planet will ‘burn up’ and it will ‘burn up’ because Phil Jones wanted it to happen so he could proven to be correct.
Do you have evidence of that from anyplace in particular?”
Hunter sorry you got messed up by the parody.
Lets play a game. I am going to write a paragraph and you tell me what it means.
Everyone, lets play the game. I will write something and you tell me what you think. Ok?
hunter, david? bugs?
I’m in. 🙂
Here is a paragraph that I would like hunter and other to have a go at
interpreting. tell me what you think this means:
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
I think that it means that, if this person to take a selfish point of view, they would want climate change to happen so that the science is proved right, regardless of consequences.
The other option would be that it is two different people talking: the first in the first two sentences; the second in the last sentence.
no fair googling
Its one person speaking
Then my first thought holds.
I do read climate blogs a lot, steven, so I have seen it before. 🙂
(or something like it, at any rate).
yes they value their personal desire to be right over their political desires and over potential hazrds for the globe.
would such a person take any action to prevent being proved wrong?
steven mosher,
That is not how I parsed it.
They are saying, ‘If I were to take a purely selfish perspective, then I would want climate change to take place, regardless of the consequences, in order to prove climate change right.’
Note that *they* are the ones saying that this view is a selfish one; ie, not a good one.
The key to parsing it, imo, is the last sentence. The meaning of the middle sentence would change completely if that last sentence was not there or was being said by a second person.
Good, so when hunter questions the evidence that jones would take action to prevent being proved wrong, even at the expense of the planet, you would have
to agree that this provides a bit of evidence in that direction.
You see I was puzzled by why Jones would refuse hughes data.
Puzzled by his actions in the FOIA case ( lying about the “non academic clause”
Puzzled by his telling Mann and other to delte mails.
Why would he do these things. Lots of explanations I suppose.
I’m entitled to offer one. He’s afraid of being proved wrong.
Other people can offer their take. Maybe Jones will explain himself.
But it’s a reading that is “consistent with” the text.
steven mosher,
In answer to your question, “Would such a person take any action to prevent being proved wrong?” the answer is that they are *not* such a person.
steven mosher,
No. Now you are not parsing what I have written. Jones is *not* saying what you think he is saying.
Imagine someone saying, ‘If I was to operate from an evil perspective, I would kill all Democrats.’ Would you accuse them of wanting to kill all Democrats?
What if Jones had said things in a slightly different order?
What if he had said, ‘From a selfish point of view, I would like climate change to occur, regardless of the consequences, in order to prove climate science correct’?
The reason that Jones included the comment about being selfish was that this was not what he really wanted; he has other points of views besides the purely selfish.
Basically, your reading of the text makes out Jones to be a psychopath. Not really a credible conclusion.
And I can certainly see how you would come to the conclusion that AGW believers are unreasonable if you infer psychopathy based on three sentences of text …
Because he is an ignorant jerk who continually accuses them of incompetence and has no interest in advancing science.
steven mosher,
I really hope that you are just playing with this one and parodying something that I am unfamiliar with, because it really is a silly argument.
To reiterate this point, in moments of despair and frustration I too think, and occassionally give utterance to, similar sentiments. Does that mean that I really wish for lives to be placed in peril? Of course not. That is ridiculous. What I *want* to happen is for humans to take action before any disasters strike. And so does Dr Jones.
And another tip: when it is a choice between some dastardly evil plot and something a little more humdrum, always choose the humdrum option. The world is not a comic book, with scientists out of the Far Side muttering, ‘Laugh at me, will they!’ while doing their best to unleash doom.
Re: David Gould (Jan 29 05:05),
+1 from me on this. I think each of us has used a similar expression from time to time, I know I certainly have. When one is frustrated that the “other side” can’t or won’t see the point you have very carefully made clear you wish that their computer systems crash during final approach so that they will finally see the light. This is a virtual wish and there are only virtual consequences, of which only one matters: that the point you are presenting is understood.
Re: David Gould (Jan 28 22:44),
Imagine if the structure paralleled that in Mosher’s example:
“If anything, I would kill all Democrats. I am Evil.”
Look at what Jones wrote again:
Jones put the if in the sentences describing which options he would like to see. So, he describes what he would like:
“Of all possible options of what might happen, I would like to see climate change happen.”
The he gives a diagnosis of what that means: if you want what he wants, you aren’t acting politically. You are acting evil.
The structure is not “If I were evil, I would want what I want” It’s. “I want X. Wanting X is evil.”
Now, it may well be that Jones didn’t really mean what he wrote. People say things they don’t mean all the time. They also often organize their words in sloppy ways so that their literal meaning is not what they intend. But Jones words say what your version says. They literally say what Mosher says they say– and there is no getting around that.
The only question is: Did Jones mean what his words literally say? I’m willing to believe … kinda… sorta… yes and no.
I think Jones merely expressed a desire for a conclusive “I told you so” moment of vindication. It is not evidence of malice so much as it is an indication of the degree of unhealthy partisanship that pervades climate science.
During the Falklands War in 1982, an acquaintance of mine said that while he was sorry that the Sheffield (or maybe the Belgrano I can’t remember which) had just been sunk he was delighted to see the missile systems he had (marginally) helped build actually worked. That still remains my personal reference standard for creepiest personal vindication moments. Phil Jones’ doesn’t score all that high on that scale.
Luica,
Perfect THANKS. There is of course a meaning one can take that is not the literal meaning. To make such a reading one has to support it from the whole text, otherwise you would be the one taking it out of context. On the literal meaning Jones means exactly what he says. This meaning and the attitude it reflects is supported by
other portions of the whole corpus and his actions. That’s what I mean when I write that they are WORSE taken in context. I got kinda peeved early on ( I read all 1000 before I even posted about them) to see people say ” you’ve taken them out of context” seemed weird to me since I knew they had not read them all. Anyways, the other thing you could say is that Jones is trying to cover his political interest ( hey Im NOT POLITICAL) by just throwing up a red herring.
So which is worse: copping to your unbridled selfishness or lying about your political interests.
Either way it doesnt look good for Jones. you see The issue at play in the mail is the DEADLINES. Rules of procedure set in place to prevent Lead authors from slipping in last minute science fresh off the presses that hasnt been fully publsihed, reviewed, settled. Jones argues that the deadlines are silly because science progresses. That gets it wrong. The deadlines are meant to prevent just the kind of problem we see in chapter 6. Deadlines are arbitrary. deal with it. But jones argues that he knows better.
Granted he thinks he knows better, but he’s just one man and cant see his limitations. Its precisely WHY procedures are put in place. Jones doesnt see that the procedure is directed precisely at a person with his tendencies. he thinks he is right. full stop.
At some point in ones life you have to come to an awareness of your intellectual tendencies and put them in check. ” I will play by the rules and be shown correct or incorrect by others. “
‘Granted he thinks he knows better, but he’s just one man and cant see his limitations’.
‘Can’t see’ or ‘unwilling to acknowedge’? Or is it ‘unable to acknowledge’?
lucia and steven mosher,
Sorry, that is simply nonsense. Parsing the text in such a way is conspiracy theory thinking. Come on: do you seriously think that Dr Jones *really and truly wishes that millions of people will suffer and die just so climate science is proven right*? If you do, you have a very, very sad view of the world.
My advice to both of you is that when you read the words of an opponent parse them in a way that is the most favourable to them that you can. And then realise that you are probably not being generous enough.
I have to say that I am very disappointed that this was not a parody by Steven Mosher. And even more disappointed that lucia is “willing to believe … kinda… sorta… yes and no.”
I don’t think you get it. The rules are there precisely because there will always be people, with all their imperfections, working in science. The glee with which people are pounding on Jones ignores the whole reason that a scientific method was created in the first place, precisely because there are people taking part in it. This was all realised long ago, you people seem to be slow on the uptake.
Just look at what happens to the histrionics of McIntyre when he has to follow the formal publishing process. By focussing on Jones, you are obviously having a fun time, but you have lost all pretensions at having anything to do with science.
lucia,
As to “no getting around that”, rubbish.
No-one says, ‘I am evil. Bwah ha ha!’. When someone says, ‘That is selfish,’ they are saying, ‘That is bad.’ They are passing a judgment on the previous statement. In other words, Jones is making a wish and then judging that wish to be bad: in other words, he is saying that it is not a wish that he would really make.
I have to say that I hope Steven Mosher did not make his silly interpretation of that piece of text a significant part of his book. How embarrassing if he did …
Re: David Gould (Jan 29 15:53),
You need to stop conflating two separate questions:
1) What do the words he wrote literally mean as written?
2) Did he really mean what his words mean when taken literally?
On tha assumtion that the answer to Q2 is “no”, you have edited his words, shifting the “if” to change the literal meaning of what the words themselves say. You may have managed to capture what he really intended or what he really thinks. The problem is this: It’s not what his words actually say.
If someone asks question (1)– which steve did, the literally meaning of his words sounds very bad. But you don’t get to insist that the literally meaning is something else just because he couldn’t possibly have intended their literal meaning. What’s true is:
1) The literal meaning is as I wrote above.
2) Jones may not really think that– as I wrote above.
So, as for your question
I doubt the he really and truly wishes that. That’s why I said “Now, it may well be that Jones didn’t really mean what he wrote.”
But, as for the “kinda sort of yes and no”. I stand behind that. When push comes to shove, I don’t think he wishes millions of people to suffer. But, by the same token, he may well recognize in himself that he really, really likes to be right. He wants to turn out to be right. If push came to shove, would he want millions to suffer for it– no. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t just kinda sort of want to be proven right!
Gosh David. We discussed the tendency of people to want to be right last week. We all know that this distorts peoples perceptions and it’s something on has to guard against. Do you think Jones doesn’t have the same self awareness to know that he really, really, really likes to be right? And gets some twinge of happiness when he’s right?
This doesn’t mean he wants people to suffer– and note that he didn’t say he wants people to suffer. He just would like to be right.
lucia,
I am not conflating anything. It is you who ‘kind of sort believe he does really want that’, not me. Steven Mosher initially said nothing about ‘the literal meaning’. He was talking about how one should parse that particular piece of text. Text parsing is *not* about ‘literal meaning’.
As to the second point re wanting to be right, of course Dr Jones wants to be right. I raised this when I said that I sometimes wish bad things to happen, but they aren’t *real* wishes.
Regarding Dr Jones not wishing suffering on anyone, if you read it *literally*, he does. He said, ‘regardless of consequences’ and he more than anyone knows what some of the consequences are going to be and that they are going to cause suffering. So, on a literal reading of the text, Dr Jones is most definitely wishing suffering on people. But obviously interpreting it that way is silly.
“the evidence that jones would take action to prevent being proved wrong, even at the expense of the planet, you would have
to agree that this provides a bit of evidence in that direction.”
I mean, come on! You *seriously* consider that this might be true? Please tell me that you are joking. Please?
“So, on a literal reading of the text, Dr Jones is most definitely wishing suffering on people. But obviously interpreting it that way is silly.”
David,
If someone’s mental state is at an extreme or someone’s passions are unleased, they will say or write extreme things and actually literally mean the words they communicate, even though that communication seems unreasonable after-the-fact.
Now, that person may look back and not feel the same way today as they did yesterday, when they were extreme. It would be easy for that person then to say “I didn’t mean that.” The reality may be that at the time, they did mean it. In an emotional state, they mean it. When they are reasonable, they don’t.
Andrew
One thing I’d like to add…
If someone communicates something extreme, I think it’s safe to conclude that that person’s mind ‘went there’ in order to conceive and then articulate the communication.
That’s why I do not think it’s wise to simply dismiss disturbing things that people communicate. The communication comes from where the mind has been.
Everyone have a safe and happy evening. I am goin’ out with the boyz for a bit. 😉
Andrew
david:
David:
“Sorry, that is simply nonsense. Parsing the text in such a way is conspiracy theory thinking.
That you say it’s nonsense is nonsense. If you want to read it another way,
then go ahead and read it. Interpret it. Give your reading, but make sure
you back it up with a full knowledge of the whole text and all the events.
Further its not conspiracy theory thinking. I don’t think anyone else holds this view. It’s very odd.
*****
Come on: do you seriously think that Dr Jones *really and truly wishes that millions of people will suffer and die just so climate science is proven right*? If you do, you have a very, very sad view of the world.
*****
I think one of two things. He either meant what he said in which case I have a very sad view of HIM which stands out in stark contrast to my happy view of the world. OR, he did not mean what he said. On that horn of the dilemma we need an alternative reading. I am happy to oblige there as well. he has just told Christy that “I am not political” rather “[I am] being selfish”
That is the fundamental underlying battling interest at heart. You really have to understand the whole mail to see that this is the distinction that Jones is relying on. The context of this mail Jones is afraid of being accused of being political. He offers instead another interest: selfishness. Once you understand that you see that either way you take it, it’s not very good. Jones is so afraid of being called political that he takes on a more sinister interest. And he tries to reinforce his commitment to “the truth” by exaggerating the length to which he will go to have the science proven right. On this reading he doth protest to much. Take your pick of readings it doesnt look very good.
*****
My advice to both of you is that when you read the words of an opponent parse them in a way that is the most favourable to them that you can. And then realise that you are probably not being generous enough.
******
I pretty sure that approach would get things wrong in some cases, Let me see if I can come up with a good example…Ah yes here. As you know Phil Jones claims that he has received emails threatening his life. The police have contacted him. This is the right course of action. Take threats literally first and act with prudence. I read Jones mail. Wow. Looks pretty threatening.
I think I will pass on your advice. My approach is this. Read everything. Try to come to a meaning that creates a coherent character. Its like data and a theory. You will find bits and pieces that dont fit. That requires some auxilarily hypothesis. Now of course, you can argue “no human would believe that.” Hmm, we have the example of Pachauri calling Lomberg a nazi of sorts.
*****
I have to say that I am very disappointed that this was not a parody by Steven Mosher. And even more disappointed that lucia is “willing to believe … kinda… sorta… yes and no.â€
*****
It wasnt a parody. It was a test of sorts about a couple issues. First the claim that there was NO EVIDENCE of jones having these kind of opinions. So I expect you david to say that there is evidence. The words are evidence. In light of that evidence you choose to believe this: “he can’t be serious” “Nobody would think that way” “Steve has a sad view of people if he thinks Jones thought that”. Do you see the logical structure of how this works. You are arguing that Jones cant mean this, because it’s unreasonable or too evil or outside the pale. And if I believe that Jones believe then somehow I must have a twisted view of people. Well, let’s grant you your assessment. Jones
CANT mean what he says. Ok, stipulated for arguments sake. What does he mean? or why does he say that? And then when you give THAT meaning we will see how consistent that meaning is with other things in the mails. This is why it is vital to read them all. Have you?
david.
The literal meaning is the meaning of the words as they stand without reference to the surrounding textual context or the non textual context.
You want to argue that Jones cant mean what the words say ( the literal) meaning, because of the non textual content. That is, you believe its not probable that a human would have such opinions. It’s silly for us to believe that Jones or anyone would believe this. Hence, you believe it must have some other meaning or purpose. Its a choice you make, and interpretive choice. You can’t believe he would believe such a thing. Well, we do have examples in history of people faking results and doing all manner of horrid things for personal reasons. So I can’t rule out apriori that the literal meaning is wrong. Part of the reason I put it out there is to see what the best argument is for other readings. In the book I really don’t comment on it
only to note that it is rather odd. The mail is important for other reasons.
When it comes to interpreting Jones or Briffa or Mann I tried to be pretty careful about going too far, but on occasion I would put a view on things. Anybody who wants to read all the mails and argue differently is welcome. Those three are fascinating characters and their interaction looks like it evolves over time. Again, nothing to do with the science, much.
Ok I cant resist this:
When a paper attacking Skeptics gets published. Jones writes
“the empire strikes back”
Gosh, he sees himself as darth vadar
Re: steven mosher (Jan 29 17:38), You may be involved in “pearls before swine” or trying to “teach a pig to sing.”
I understand and agree with your points. In fact, in context, it DOES provide evidence that Jones would do unacceptable activities to support his position. I agree it is relatively flimsy. However, trying to convince someone, that flimsy evidence is still evidence, and can reflect and tie together other evidence into a coherent whole, is often futile, if they are predisposed to disbelieve the conclusion.
Short version: first sentence.
Steven Mosher,
I have given my view of what the words mean many times in this thread. He means exactly the same thing that I do when I, in annoyance and despair, wish harm to come to the planet so that my views are proved true. *It is not a real wish!* I am not a psychopath. Neither is Jones.
The fact that you so readily jump to that conclusion tells me much about you. It tells me nothing about Jones.
I think I am done with this web site. It actually seemed a place where I could have discussions with those who had a range of opposing views to mine but who were not straying into conspiracy theory thinking (except for a couple who I found amusing.) But the fact that both you and lucia, both of whom I indeed consider reasonable, can come to this kind of view, stuns me. I do not know how to converse with people who parse text in such a way, unfortunately. 🙁
I’ll take a break, at any rate.
See you round.
David,
Sorry to see you go.
First, I don’t jump to the conclusion about Jones. I lay out the literal meaning. I show how that literal meaning is “consistent with” other facts in the case. I even suggest another reading that is not literal. Don’t think for one minute that I believe I know what is in Jones heart. The point is to get YOU or jones to come and put a better spin on these things.
You tried: “I have given my view of what the words mean many times in this thread. He means exactly the same thing that I do when I, in annoyance and despair, wish harm to come to the planet so that my views are proved true. *It is not a real wish!* I am not a psychopath. Neither is Jones.”
Except, in the mail in question he is not in annoyance and despair. he is writing a mail to Christy, a known skeptic. He is informing Christy about the deadlines for publication and telling Christy that he should get his papers in before the deadlines. Because there are rules to follow and if they dont follow the rules they will be viewed as acting in a political manner. He then tries to slough this criticism off by putting forward a ridiculus statement: I care so much about the science that I would see the planet burn up. Rubbish. You see what you dont get, is that if you take it literally you get Jones as Monster. If you take it as you do, you get Jones as what? Someone like you? That hardly helps us understand him.
Now turn around and look at the attitude Jones has when he knows that his team is breaking the rules. look at what Jones does when people ask him for data. Does he fabricate excuses?
Yup. Did the appeal officer agree that the excuse he made up was fabricated? yup. So, here with Christy in fustration and annoyance that he will have to abide by deadlines, he says this totally ridiculous thing. Nice. And when he is asked for data, he makes up an excuse out of whole cloth. nice. And when it looks like he is going to caught by Holland, he tells everybody to delete mails. nice. and when santer has troubles with FOI in the US Jones tells him how to corrupt the officers. Nice. And then Jones brings up FOIA with the secretariate of the IPCC.
I’m more than willing to give up the strawman argument that Jones is a Monster. What replaces it. Someone like you.
Who in fustration would say things he doesnt mean and run off in a huff. Cause Moshpit and a mean girl made him think and defend his position. I bet you’d hid data too. It’s kinda an emotional equivalent.
I wont give you my data because you might prove me wrong.
I’m taking my ball and going home cause you might beat me.
Gosh, is that you Phil?