Amateur scientist Willis
Eschenbach, who resides in Honiara, Solomon Islands, has studied changes in sea
level and coral. His unsuccessful Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain
climate data from East Anglia University’s Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) figured
in the Climategate scandal described in this month’s Editorial. He described
his unsuccessful attempts to receive information in "The
People Versus the Climate Research Unit (CRU)," an 11,000-word article
that has been published on various blogs. It is presented here without editing
and with the permission of the author. Editor
The People Versus the Climate Research
Unit (CRU)
by Willis Eschenbach
As far as I know,
I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that
started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer
funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was
not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil,
I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate.
I’m not "directed" by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing
conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards.
People seem to be
missing the real issue in the discussion of the hacked CRU climate emails.
Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue
is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the
Nature "trick", and the like. Those are side trails that he would
like people to follow. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart
of science, which is transparency.
Science works by
one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that
they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among
other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t
replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking my Freedom of Information request
for his data allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record was valid
science, even though it has never been scientifically examined.
This is not just
trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry.
This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with
you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.
The recent release
of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an amazing insight into the
attempt by myself, Steve McIntyre, and others from CA and elsewhere to obtain
the raw station data from Phil Jones at the CRU. We wanted the data that was
used to make the global temperature record that is relied on to claim
"unprecedented" global warming. This is a chronological account of my
attempts to get that vital data released to public view.
A few housekeeping
notes first. While we don’t know if all of these emails are valid, the comments
of the researchers involved such as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann clearly
indicate that they think the emails are authentic. The emails certainly fit
with my experience. I have only included the relevant parts of emails, and
indicated where I have snipped text by an ellipsis (...). Numbers of the emails
are in parentheses. "Codes" is shorthand for the computer programs
used to analyze the data.
CRU is the Climate
Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA), arguably the top climate
research unit in the world. Dr. Phil Jones is the Director of CRU. CA is
ClimateAudit, a web site run by Steve McIntyre that audits scientific papers
for errors of all types. MM is Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have
authored papers together. Michael Mann is one of the three authors, with
Bradley and Hughes, of the now discredited iconic "Hockeystick" paper
that was heavily promoted by the UN IPCC. The Hockeystick paper claimed this is
the warmest period in six hundred years. The Hockeystick paper was discredited
largely through the efforts of Steve McIntyre, so Michael Mann and the others
do not like Steve at all. Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeler that runs a web
site called RealClimate. This purports to be a scientific blog, but the CRU
emails confirm that it is a well-controlled mouthpiece for Michael Mann and
others who believe in anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW).
RealClimate ruthlessly censors comments and questions, in stark contrast to
ClimateAudit, which allows free expression of any scientific questions and
ideas. (Although in response to the intense scrutiny caused by the emails,
RealClimate immediately started accepting a number of opposing comments for the
first time. This is a smart move, as newcomers will be fooled into thinking
there is no censorship … but the emails prove otherwise.)
The IPCC is the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR4 is the IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (2007). WMO is the World Meteorological Organization,
which collates and supplies weather information. FOI or FOIA is the UK Freedom
of Information Act.
The story actually
starts with Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher who had previously
been in cordial contact with Phil Jones. I find only one email in the archive
(0969308954) where Phil emails Warwick, from 2000. This is in response to some
inconsistencies that Warwick had found in Phil’s work:
Warwick Hughes to
Phil Jones, September '04:
Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),
Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the
grid cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid
point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map
showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this was due to
interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures described in a
submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up a page detailing
shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north Siberian region, everything
is specified there with diagrams and numbered grid points.
[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have
larger anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????
This must be explained.
[2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming
in Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid cells
with no stations, like cancer.
[3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected
trend from the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated
into its western neighbour.
I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.
Best regards,
Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)
Phil to Warwick,
same email:
Warwick,
I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web
page. I see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot
produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single month). If
you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are talking about larger
trends then that is a different matter. Trends say in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99
period require 16 years to have data and at least 10 months in each year. It is
conceivable that at there are 24 years in this period that missing values in
some boxes influence trend calculation. I would expect this to be random across
the globe.
Warwick,
Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t
produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me the
cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have this I can
check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and (3) we compared
all stations with neighbours and these two stations did not have problems when
the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not around much for the next 3 weeks
but will be here most of this week and will try to answer (1) if I get more
details. If you have the names of stations that you’ve compared Olenek and
Verhojansk with I would appreciate that.
Cheers
Phil
OK, so far we have
a couple of scientists discussing issues in a scientific work, usual tone, no
problem. But as he found more inconsistencies, in order to understand what was
going on, in 2005 Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create
the CRU temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:
Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have
25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to
you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil
Hmmm … not a good
start. Or as they say in the novel "1984", double-plus ungood.
Science can only progress if there is a free exchange of scientific data. The
scientific model works like this:
- A scientist makes
claims, and reveals the data and methods he used to come to his conclusions.
- Other scientists who
don’t agree attack the claim by (inter alia) seeing if they can replicate the
result, using the first scientist’s data and methods.
- If the claims cannot be replicated, the claim is
adjudged to be false.
Obviously, if the
data or the methods are kept secret, the claims cannot be verified. Attacking
other scientist’s claims is what what scientists do, that's their job
description. This adversarial system is the heart of science. Phil Jones
refusing scientific data because someone will attack it is an oxymoron, of
course they will attack it. That's science.
When I found out
about Phil Jones saying this, I couldn’t believe it. I thought, a scientist
can’t do that, can he? He can't refuse to reveal his data. This is science, not
hide and seek. I literally didn't think Jones had been quoted correctly. So to
find out, I wrote to the University of East Anglia (of which the CRU is a
Department) on September 8, 2006, saying:
I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used
in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data
for those stations. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead author for
the temperature average is Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit.
Many thanks, Willis Eschenbach
I got no response
from Phil Jones or anyone at CRU or UEA. So I filed a Freedom of Information
act request for the data.
Now at this point,
let me diverge from my application to what was happening at CRU before and
during this time. The first reference to Freedom of Information in their emails
is from 2005, before they had received a single request. Immediately, they
start to plan how to evade requests should some come in:
Tom Wigley, Former
Director of CRU, to Phil Jones, 21/01/2005
Phil,
…
I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if
someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you check this
for me (and Sarah). ...
Thanks,
Tom.
Phil replies to
Tom:
Tom,
…
On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It
doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do re programs or data. Like all
things in Britain we will only find out when the first person or organization
asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI Act in Britain. I don’t think UEA
really knows what’s involved.
As you’re no longer an employee I would use this argument if
anything comes along. I think it is supposed to mainly apply to issues of
personal information – references for jobs etc.
...
Cheers
Phil
So the coverup
starts immediately, even before the first request. "I wouldn’t tell anyone
about the FOI act in Britain".
Tom to Phil
Phil,
Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but
it was prepared by UEA so they may have simplified things. From their wording,
computer code would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was
still employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written one
tenth of the code and release every tenth line.
…
Tom
You can see how
they plan to observe the spirit of the FOI Act. Claim a temporary employee
isn't really an employee so they are not covered.
Phil to Tom
Tom,
…
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will
likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about
the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider
as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will
be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who
has been given a post to deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
Phil Jones has
just gotten the news that FOI will apply, and immediately he starts to plan how
he is going to hide from an FOI request. Cite technicalities, claim IPR
(Intellectual Property Rights), those are good hiding places.
The next email
(1109021312) is later in 2005:
At 09:41 AM
2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann:
Mike,
…
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents
everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites
– you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the
CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information
Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20
days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will
test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom
Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought
people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so
he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting
into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
….
Phil
So now we have two
more ways for Phil to hide from the FOI Act … along with a threat to delete the
data rather than release it. Astounding. And this is before they've even
received a single FOI request.
Mann replies to
Jones:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very
careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time
when he established that directory so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the
contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also
intellectual property rights issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of
things will play out ultimately in the U.S….
mike
Next, from
February 05. Jones to Mann, cc to Hughes and Bradley, co-authors of the
"hockeystick" study (1109021312)
From: Phil Jones:
To: mann
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER
TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA [This was in reference to the pressure on Michael Mann
to release the "Hockeystick" data]
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: "raymond s. bradley", "Malcolm Hughes"
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
…
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU
station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act !
The first rule of
the Freedom of Information act is … nobody talks about the Freedom of
Information Act.
With that as a
prologue, let me return to my FOI request. On February 10, 2007, I received my reply
from Mr. Dave Palmer of CRU:
Dear Mr. Eschenbach
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST
(FOI_07-04)
Your request for information received on 28 September now been
considered and I can report that the information requested is available on
non-UEA websites as detailed below.
The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page
within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US
versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php
This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the
global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from
this site.
Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate
& Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems
Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site
at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/
Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA
Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter,
NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other
variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with
adjustments for all the numerous problems).
They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple
station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We
have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data.
In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as
stated below
Exemption Reason
s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means Some
information is publicly available on external websites
I was outraged. So
the next day, I made a second request:
Dear Mr. Palmer:
Thank you for your reply (attached below). However, I fear that it
is totally unresponsive. I had asked for a list of the sites actually used.
While it may (or may not) be true that "it appears that the raw station
data can be obtained from [GHCN]", this is meaningless without an actual
list of the sites that Dr. Jones and his team used.
The debate about changes in the climate is quite important. Dr.
Jones’ work is one of the most frequently cited statistics in the field. Dr.
Jones has refused to provide a list of the sites used for his work, and as
such, it cannot be replicated. Replication is central to science. I find Dr.
Jones attitude quite difficult to understand, and I find your refusal to
provide the data requested quite baffling.
You are making the rather curious claim that because the data
"appears" to be out on the web somewhere, there is no need for Dr.
Jones to reveal which stations were actually used. The claim is even more
baffling since you say that the original data used by CRU is available at the
GHCN web site, and then follow that with the statement that some of the GHCN
data originally came from CRU. Which is the case? Did CRU get the data from
GHCN, or did GHCN get the data from CRU?
Rather than immediately appealing this ruling (with the consequent
negative publicity that would inevitably accrue to CRU from such an action), I
am again requesting that you provide:
1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation
of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and
2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is
available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences
between the versions of each site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.
I find it somewhat disquieting that an FOI request is necessary to
force a scientist to reveal the data used in his publicly funded research … is
this truly the standard that the CRU is promulgating?
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Willis Eschenbach
Hey, I was trying
to be a nice guy, not make a public scene, but to no avail. On April 12, 2007,
I got my second reply:
In regards the "gridded network" stations, I have been
informed that the Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) monthly mean surface
temperature dataset has been constructed principally from data available on the
two websites identified in my letter of 12 March 2007. Our estimate is that
more than 98% of the CRU data are on these sites.
The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of
data CRU has collected from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of
the world. In gaining access to these NMS data, we have signed agreements with
many NMSs not to pass on the raw station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy
for us to use the data in our gridding, and these station data are included in
our gridded products, which are available from the CRU web site. These
NMS-supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the database, but we
have to respect their wishes and therefore this information would be exempt
from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorological
Organization has a list of all NMSs.
That didn’t help
one bit. Without knowing which data was used, it was meaningless. They’ve tried
s.21, they’ve tried s.41, neither exemption applies. So the next day, I
replied:
While it is good to know that the data is available at those two
web sites, that information is useless without a list of stations used by Jones
et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 dataset. As I said in my request, I am asking
for:
1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation
of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and
2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is
available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences
between the versions of each site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.
Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the
location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), it is not
possible to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does not apply – I
still cannot access the data.
I don’t understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a
simple list of the sites and where each site’s data is located. Pointing at two
huge piles of data and saying, in effect, "The data is in there
somewhere" does not help at all.
To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of
the stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this:
WMO# Name Source
58457 HangZhou NCAR
58659 WenZhou NCAR
59316 ShanTou GHCN
57516 ChongQing NMS
etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3
temperature data.
That is the information requested, and it is not available
"on non-UEA websites", or anywhere else that I have been able to
find.
I appreciate all of your assistance in this matter, and I trust we
can get it resolved satisfactorily.
Best regards,
I received another
letter, saying that they could not identify the locations of the requested
information. I wrote back again, saying:
Dear Mr. Palmer:
It appears we have gone full circle here, and ended up back where
we started.
I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce
the HadCRUT3 dataset to be posted up on the UEA website, or made available in
some other form.
You refused, saying that the information was available elsewhere
on non-UEA websites, which is a valid reason for FOI refusals.
I can report that the information requested is not available on
non-UEA websites as detailed below.
Your most recent letter (Further _information_ letter_final_
070418_rev01. doc), however, says that you are unable to identify the locations
of the requested information. Thus, the original reason for refusing to provide
station data for HadCRUT3 was invalid.
Therefore, since the information requested is not available on
non-UEA websites, I wish to re-instate my original request, that the
information itself be made available on your website or in some other form. I
understand that a small amount of this data (about 2%, according to your
letter) is not available due to privacy requests from the countries involved.
In that case, a listing of which stations this applies to will suffice.
The HadCRUT3 dataset is one of the fundamental datasets in the
current climate discussion. As such, it is vitally important that it can be
peer reviewed and examined to verify its accuracy. The only way this can be
done is for the data to be made available to other researchers in the field.
Once again, thank you for your assistance in all of this. It is
truly not a difficult request, and is fully in line with both standard
scientific practice and your "CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESPONDING TO REQUESTS
FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000″. I am sure
that we can bring this to a satisfactory resolution without involving appeals
or unfavorable publicity.
My best regards to you,
w.
Here is the
response from 27 April:
Dear Mr. Eschenbach FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 –
INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_07-04)
Further to your email of 14 April 2007 in which you re-stated your
request to see
"a list of stations used by Jones et al. to prepare the
HadCRUT3 dataset" I am asking for: 1) A list of the actual sites used by
Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and 2) A clear indication
of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there
are significant differences between the versions of each site’s data at e.g.
GHCN and NCAR."
In your note you also requested "the name and WMO number of
each site and the location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met
Service)",
I have contacted Dr. Jones and can update you on our efforts to
resolve this matter.
We cannot produce a simple list with this format and with the
information you described in your note of 14 April. Firstly, we do not have a
list consisting solely of the sites we currently use. Our list is larger, as it
includes data not used due to incomplete reference periods, for example.
Additionally, even if we were able to create such a list we would not be able
to link the sites with sources of data. The station database has evolved over
time and the Climate Research Unit was not able to keep multiple versions of it
as stations were added, amended and deleted. This was a consequence of a lack
of data storage in the 1980s and early 1990s compared to what we have at our
disposal currently. It is also likely that quite a few stations consist of a
mixture of sources.
I have also been informed that, as the GHCN and NCAR are merely
databases, the ultimate source of all data is the respective NMS in the country
where the station is located. Even GHCN and NCAR can’t say with precision where
they got their data from as the data comes not only from each NMS, but also
comes from scientists in each reporting country.
In short, we simply don’t have what you are requesting. The only
true source would be the NMS for each reporting country. We can, however, send
a list of all stations used, but without sources. This would include locations,
names and lengths of record, although the latter are no guide as to the
completeness of the series.
This is, in effect, our final attempt to resolve this matter
informally. If this response is not to your satisfaction, I will initiate the
second stage of our internal complaint process and will advise you of progress
and outcome as appropriate. For your information, the complaint process is
within our Code of Practice and can be found at: http://www1. uea.ac.uk/ polopoly_ fs/1.2750!
uea_manual_ draft_04b. pdf
Yours sincerely David Palmer Information Policy Officer University
of East Anglia
I loved the story
line in this one "we do not have a list consisting solely of the sites we
currently use". Say what? How do they produce updates from time to time
that change the reported temperature of the globe all the way back to 1870 if
they don't have the data or a list of the sites? But I digress …
So I advised him
that I was appealing. His letter was passed to a Ms. Kitty Inglis, who replied
May 21, 2007, Decision of Information Commissoners’ Office
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST
(FOI_07-04)
Dear Mr Eschenbach
Following David Palmer’s letter of 27th April 2007 to you
regarding your dissatisfaction with our response to your FOI request of 25th
January 2007, I have undertaken a thorough review of the contents of our file
and have spoken with both Mr. Palmer and Professor Jones.
As a result of this investigation, I am satisfied that we have done
all we can to fulfil [sic] your request and to provide you with the information
you require where it is possible for us to do so.
I confirm that we are able to make available on the Climatic
Research Unit website a list of stations, including name, latitude, longitude,
elevation and WMO number (where available).
We are unable to provide a simple list of sources for these
stations as we do not hold this information. Nor do we hold the raw (i.e.
unadjusted) station data, as you describe it, at UEA. As stated in prior
letters to you, raw station data are available on the NCAR and GHCN websites
and gridded data are available on the Climatic Research Unit website. If these
data are insufficient for your requirements, you will need to contact the NMS
for the country in which the station is located to obtain the information you
require.
I hope you are able to accept this response. We have contacted the
Information Commissioner’s Office in relation to this matter and their advice
is that if you are still dissatisfied with this response, you can, at this
time, exercise your right of appeal to the Information Commissioner by
contacting them at:
Information Commissioner’ s Office
Wycliffe House
At that point, I
let it go, they weren't going to budge. I'd had a small victory, we got a list
of the stations. Of course, it took me a couple more letters to actually get
them to post the list. But I got nothing else of what I had requested, and the
list was full of all kinds of errors.
Meanwhile, behind
the scenes at CRU, I now find out that they were circling the wagons … what
follows are their internal discussions about a series of FOI requests from
myself, Steve McIntyre, Doug Keenan and others to CRU for various data over the
next few years. We start with Phil Jones to Tom Keenan and Wei-Chyung Wang (a
Chinese climate researcher), 6/19/2007 (1182255717):
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
…
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA
requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. [EMAIL NOT
FOUND IN CRU EMAILS – Willis] He said they are ignoring anybody who has
dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about
the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the
AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil
Well, that
explains a few things … they’ve managed to "persuade UEA to ignore all
further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate
Audit." Curiously, I hadn’t noticed that exemption in the FOI
documentation I’d seen. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that’s in FOI
Exemptions, I doubt if it's legal, and it definitely isn’t ethical. I note that
they were circling the wagons in Australia as well … this is followed by:
Phil Jones to Thomas Peterson, a top researcher at NOAA National
Climate Data Center, 6/20/2007 AM (1182342470) :
Tom P.
Just for interest. Don’t pass on.
Might be a precedent for your paper to J. Climate when it comes
out. There are a few interesting comments on the CA web site. One says it is up
to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct, not for Keenan to prove we’re
wrong. Interesting logic.
Cheers
Phil
Wei-Chyung, Tom,
I won’t be replying to either of the emails below [FROM STEVE
MCINTYRE AND DOUG KEENAN], nor to any of the accusations on the Climate Audit
website. I’ve sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we should be
discussing anything with our legal staff. The second letter seems an attempt to
be nice to me, and somehow split up the original author team. I do now wish I’d
never sent them the data after their FOIA
request!
Cheers
Phil
He obviously views
sending data in response to an FOIA request as optional.
Thomas Peterson to
Jones, same email:
Fascinating. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Phil. I won’t pass
it on but I will keep it in the back of my mind when/if Russ asks about
appropriate responses to CA requests. Russ’ view is that you can never satisfy
them so why bother to try?
Again, responding
to an FOIA request is viewed as optional. Next, Phil Jones to Mann and Gavin Schmidt (1189515774)
Phil Jones :
…
PS to Gavin – been following (sporadically) the CA stuff
about the GISS data and release of the code etc by Jim. May take some of the
pressure off you soon, by releasing a list of the stations we use – just
a list, no code and no data. Have agreed to under the FOIA here in the UK.
Oh Happy days!
So I see … that’s
why I only got the station list and not the data, just to " take some of
the pressure off ".
Thanks, Phil.
Onward to Jones to Ray Bradley and Caspar Amman, 5/9/08 (1210341221):
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either.
…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet
also, but this is the person [DAVID HOLLAND – Willis] who is putting in
FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of
AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.
Finding ways
around FOI requests seems to be a popular sport at CRU. This is in reference to
people trying to get the review comments to Chapter 6 of the UN IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report.
Next, here’s the
brilliant way that they had found around the FOIA, a bombshell of an idea,
Jones to Michael Mann, 29 May 2008 (1212063122). They were facing a FOI Request
for the reviewers comments on Chapter 6 of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report. This is the hotly debated Chapter on Paleoclimate, which claims that we
are currently in a very unusual warm period. Evidently they didn't want their
true views on this question to see the light …
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have
his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
…
Cheers
Phil
Again, call me
crazy, but deleting evidence in the face of an FOI request must be illegal.
Gene is Eugene Wahl, Caspar is Caspar Amman. A link to the story of how they
cheated their way into getting their paper accepted into the IPCC is in the
references. I suspect that's what they didn't want exposed. Of course, what
these guys don’t realize is that there are multiple copies of most emails
floating around. In some ways, I hope they deleted them, so that it can be
proven. The story continues:
Tim Osborne to Jones, Briffa, and Mann, 23 Jun 2008 (1214229243) :
Subject: Re: CA
Hi Phil, Keith and "Confidential Agent Ammann",
At 17:00 21/06/2008, P.Jones wrote:
…
This is a confidential email
…
So is this.
Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the responses
and letters up. There are three threads – two beginning with Fortress and
a third later one. Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards – can you
do this Tim?
I’ve saved all three threads as they now stand. No time to read
all the comments, but I did note in "Fortress Met Office" that
someone has provided a link to a website that helps you to submit FOI requests
to UK public institutions, and subsequently someone has made a further FOI
request to Met Office and someone else made one to DEFRA. If it turns into an
organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtain useful
information, then we may be able to decline all related requests without
spending ages on considering them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an
organised campaign.
Tim
Another thing to
hide behind, a possible claim of an "organised campaign" to
"inconvenience" them. "Fortress Met Office" was the title
of a ClimateAudit post on their shenanigans, it's in the references. I loved
the "Confidential Agent Amman" … next we have (1219239172):
Phil Jones:
To: Gavin Schmidt
Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper
Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008
Cc: Michael Mann
Gavin,
…
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading.
All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same
exceptions not to respond – advice they got from the Information
Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has
withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn’t want to
have to deal with this hassle.
The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any
countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC,
CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission
statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.
Cheers
Phil
So now the
Information Commissioner is in on the deal, s/he’s advising them to use the
same exceptions not to respond. No need to think about it, all the FOI people
are bought off with honeyed words, all of the wheels have been greased, FOI
requests are automatically rejected.
Next, Ben Santer
chimes in (1226451442):
Ben Santer to Thomas Karl, Karen Owen, Sharon Leduc ,
"Thorne, Peter", Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, John
Lanzante, Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones’",
Thomas R Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Steven
Sherwood, Frank Wentz, "David C. Bader", Professor Glenn McGregor,
"Bamzai, Anjuli"
Dear Tom,
…
My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are
intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is
pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away from
research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones have shown,
this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed by further requests
for computer programs, additional material and explanations, etc., etc.
Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life
addressing the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am
unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous
requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused
his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the Douglass et al. IJoC paper
which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et al. relied on a seriously flawed
statistical test, and reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of that flawed
test.
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the
behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving
our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has
no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats
and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our scientific research without
constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to
weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.
In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy
of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send
McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the
primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to
him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I
provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very
strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific
equivalent of a playground bully.
I will be consulting LLNL’s Legal Affairs Office in order to
determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we
receive from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper,
to my immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE
headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of
our paper at IJoC).
I’d be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I’m
sorry that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after
today’s events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be subject to
FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s
"ClimateAudit" website.
With best personal wishes,
Ben
Well, he got the
last paragraph right, at least. He also thinks that an FOIA request must serve
some "scientific justification", with the justification determined by
… well … by the person receiving the request, of course. Another previously
unknown part of the FOI Exemptions comes to light. Also, if you live in fear of
an audit, by Steve McIntyre or anyone else, you are definitely doing something
wrong.
Ben Santer to Tom Wigly, 12 Dec 07 (1228330629):
At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
Dear Tom,
…
One of the problems is that I’m caught in a real Catch-22
situation. At present, I’m damned and publicly vilified because I refused to
provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s
initial request for climate model data, I’m convinced (based on the past
experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would have spent years of my
scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations, additional
data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from
McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single
request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully
and written: "You see – he’s guilty as charged!" on his
website.
You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on
the MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we’ve had to do science in
"reactive mode", responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept
science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder
of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research agenda. I don’t
want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy, Douglass,
and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my life interacting
with the likes of Steven McIntyre.
I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If
they do not, I’m fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere.
With best regards,
Ben
Dr. Santer, here’s
a novel idea for you. Put enough information out when you publish the work so
that your work can be replicated. Put on the web whatever is necessary in the
way of code, data, and methods to allow your work to be checked by someone
else. If you do that, not only will you not be bothered, but you will be
following the scientific method. None of us at ClimateAudit are doing this to
harass anyone, as you claim. We’re doing this because we cannot replicate your
work, and thus your work is purely anecdotal rather than scientific.
Phil responds
(same email):
Cc: mann , Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler
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. I’ve got to know the FOI
person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The
VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests,
but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double
figures.
One issue is that these requests aren’t that widely known within
the School. So I don’t know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving
up the ladder of requests at UEA though – we’re way behind computing
though. We’re away [aware?]of requests going to others in the UK – MOHC,
Reading, DEFRA and Imperial College.
So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be
the first thing you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI. The
inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request
sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific
credibility with his peers!
If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go
through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2
months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything
at all. This legislation is different from the FOI – it is supposed to be
used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating !
In response to FOI and EIR requests, we’ve put up some data
– mainly paleo data. Each request generally leads to more – to
explain what we’ve put up. Every time, so far, that hasn’t led to anything
being added – instead just statements saying read what is in the papers
and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such response (via the FOI
person) earlier this week. We’ve never sent programs, any codes and manuals.
In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in
2 weeks time. These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from
next year we’ll be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and
amounts of grants, papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the
# of FOI requests you get should be another.
When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of
people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early next year.
Gavin and Mike are on this with loads of others. I’ve told both exactly what
will appear on CA once they get access to it!
Cheers
Phil
Well, that
explains why David Palmer and Ms. Kitty Inglis, the Chief Librarian, were so
unsupportive. It took a couple of half hour sessions, but at the end of that,
rather than being a representative of the FOI process, they were functioning as
the personal representatives of Phil Jones. We also have a new reason I hadn’t
noticed in the FOI Exemptions for refusing a request — because the
requester posts at CA.
Jones to Ben Santer again, 10 Dec 2008: (1228922050)
Ben,
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not
entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to
look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here
early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this
was 'normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10,
so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational
data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the
latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these
– all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’ s
Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even
if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it
has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding
like Sir Humphrey here! McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but
requests and responses all get posted up on CA regardless of who sends them.
On observational data, there have been at least 5 including a
couple from McIntyre. Others here came from Eschenbach and also Douglas Keenan.
The latter relate to Wei-Chyung Wang, and despite his being exonerated by SUNY,
Keenan has not changed his web site since being told the result by SUNY!
The paleo data requests have all been to Keith, and here Tim and
Keith reply. The recent couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at
least two others from Holland. So since Feb 2007, CRU is in double figures. We
never get any thanks for putting things up – only abuse and threats. The
latest lot is up in the last 3-4 threads on CA.
I got this email over the weekend – see end of this email.
This relates to what Tim sent back late last week. There was another one as
well – a chatty one saying why didn’t I respond to keep these people on
CA quiet. I’ve ignored both. Finally, I know that DEFRA receive Parliamentary
Questions from MPs to answer. One of these 2 months ago was from a Tory MP
asking how much money DEFRA has given to CRU over the last 5 years. DEFRA
replied that they don’t give money – they award grants based on open
competition. DEFRA’s system also told them there were no awards to CRU, as when
we do get something it is down as UEA!
I’ve occasionally checked DEFRA responses to FOI requests –
all from Holland.
Cheers
Phil
Since he and Mann
and the others have already deleted their emails, looks like David Palmer (the
"FOI person") was a bit too late with his excellent advice … however,
my name did get a "Mentioned In Dispatches" from Phil, at least …
I also like the
sly way he tells Ben how to illegally delete emails, just do it as part of
"'normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!" Yeah, right, that's
the ticket, "Secret Agent Phil" at work.
One thing I can't
understand. Since they have the FOI person, and the FOI Appeals person, and the
Information Commissioner in their pockets, and they have the standard terms of
refusal figured out ... I mean, under those situations, just how difficult can
it be to deny an FOI Request? So what if they are in "double
figures", they aren't responding to the requests. So their bitching about
all the pressure the FOI requests are putting them under is nonsense, since all
they do is say "REJECTED" and send them back.
Next, Phil Jones
to Raymond Pierrehumbert (a climate researcher at the University of Chicago),
16 Jan 09 (1200493432):
Cc: Michael Mann , Gavin Schmidt
Ray,
…
I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot. This is the last
of them from March 26, 2007. I sent him a number of papers to read. He seems
incapable of grasping the concept of spatial degrees of freedom, and how this
number can change according to timescale. I also told him where he can get
station data at NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our
station data, mainly because of McIntyre). I told him all this as well when we
met at a meeting of the French Academy in early March.
…
Cheers, Phil
This is a very
clear statement of what Jones has done. He has refused to release the data, not
because there is any logical reason to do so, not because it fits under some
recognized exemption, but "because of McIntyre". This is shameful,
and the fact that the FOI people, Dave Peters and Kitty Inglis and the
Information Commissioner, went along with this is dereliction of duty.
Finally, Stephen
Schneider chimes in to write Ben from Stanford University, 6 Jan 09
(1231257056).
To:
Ben Santer
Cc: "David C. Bader", Bill Goldstein, Pat Berge, Cherry
Murray, George Miller, Anjuli Bamzai, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia, Doug Rotman,
Peter Thorne, Leopold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley John Lanzante, Susan
Solomon, Melissa Free, peter gleckler, "Philip D. Jones", Thomas R
Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Steven Sherwood,
Frank Wentz
"Thanks" Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had
a similar experience– but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a
private institution- -with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have the Mann et
al cohort publish all their computer codes for papers published in Climatic
Change. I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The
vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough information on
their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable can do
their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal
computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious
requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders could
then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property
issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in
the business of producing software products for general consumption and have no
resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published,
concurred–so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few
years ago.
This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in
my opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a
fishing expedition to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of
code–which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex work–and then
assert that the entire result is thus suspect. Our best way to deal with this
issue of replication is to have multiple independent author teams, with their
own codes and data sets, publishing independent work on the same
topics–like has been done on the "hockey stick". That is how
credible scientific replication should proceed.
Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is
doing now, you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so
competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing
undocumented personalized codes etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows
their intent–to discredit papers so they have no "evidentiary value
in public policy"–what you resort to when you can’t win the
intellectual battle scientifically at IPCC or NAS.
Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to
international climate policy actions, We are witnessing the "contrarian
battle of the bulge" now, and expect that all weapons will be used.
Cheers, Steve
PS Please do not copy or forward this email.
Now, why would Dr.
Schneider not want his email copied or forwarded … perhaps because he is
telling people not to follow the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act,
because he's saying don't release the code that shows the math and reveals how
you got your results? He foolishly thinks that studies can be
"replicated" by using different data and different codes … but that
says absolutely nothing about the original study and whether it contains any
mistakes. The only way to determine whether a study like a historical temperature
reconstruction contains errors is to examine the scientists actual work. You
can't just pick another different bunch of proxies, analyze them, and say
"I've found mathematical errors in your reconstruction". You can only
find those errors if you examine the actual math the researcher used, and to do
that you need access to "their" codes.
I put
"their" codes, in quotes because, under the policies of the
University of East Anglia (and many other Universities) the codes do not belong
to Phil Jones. They were developed as a part of his employment, and as such
they belong to the University, and not to Phil. Details are in the references
below.
The researchers
complain in various places, including in response to my application, that they
do not need to reveal their "primary data" because it is available on
the web. While this is often true, as was demonstrated in the responses to my
requests it is not necessarily sufficient. Just saying "I got the
information from Website X" as CRU did is often totally inadequate to locate
the data in question. Santer makes this charge, that anyone could go the CMIP
website and get the data themselves … but unless he says exactly which data
from which run of which model running which scenario, the website address is
meaningless.
The main
impression that I get from the emails is that the various scientists think that
I and other requesters are simply doing this to harass them. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I respect actual scientists, I'm short of time myself
so I understand time pressures, so I have no desire to put any scientist to any
extra effort beyond providing what science requires – a full accounting
of the data, the methods, and in some cases the computer code used to do the
research. Anything more is harassment … but anything less is scientific
obstruction. And if they would provide those things when they publish their
results, they'd never hear from me. And if Nature Magazine and Science Magazine
and the National Science Foundation and all of the journals and funders would
just enforce their own existing rules on archiving and transparency, the
problem would be solved. But noooo, for the select, for the "Friends of
Phil and Mike" these bothersome transparency regulations are ignored and
overlooked by Nature and Science and the NSF.
In particular, we
need both the data and the computer code to be released. I knew they would
never release their code, so I didn't bother to ask, but it is equally as
important as the data, perhaps moreso. Part of the difficulty with climate science
is that, unlike all other physical sciences, it does not study things —
instead it studies averages.
This is because
climate by definition is the average of weather over a suitably long period of
time (typically taken as a minimum of 30 years). As a result, much of the study
that goes on, and the papers that are written, deal almost exclusively with
mathematics and statistics. This is the reason that access to the computer
codes is so critical.
It’s simple in the
physical sciences to describe a physical experiment, e.g. “I took three grams
of carbon and subjected them to a pressure of 50,000KPa and a temperature of
500C for 23 hours. Unfortunately, the experiment did not succeed, so I could
not secretly replace the diamond I had lost from my wife’s wedding ring.”
Anyone can reproduce that experiment (and get the same results).
But when you say
“I took the raw temperature data, variance-adjusted it, averaged it, gridded
it, area-adjusted it, extrapolated results to data-free areas within 250 km,
and made a global temperature record”, that’s far from enough information. In
order to determine what was done, we need far more detailed information in
climate science than in other physical sciences This is because in general we
are describing intricate mathematical operations rather than physical
experiments. These are often very hard to describe clearly in spoken or written
language.
And even a
crystal-clear description is not enough. Despite what he says he has done, if
the scientist has inadvertently used an improper procedure (e.g. the uncentered
principal components analysis used in Mann’s Hockeystick), we’ll never be able
to determine that the answer is demonstrably wrong unless we have the actual
code that he used. Otherwise, we could spend years trying to guess where he
went wrong, but we would never be able to show that he went wrong as science
demands.
This is why the
insistence of scientists that their computer codes are sacrosanct private
secret documents best kept under Hermetic seal in a clandestine vault is lethal
to good science. Without the codes, we can’t tell if what has been done is
correct and free from hidden mathematical error. Of course, this may be
unconnected with the reason that Mann and Jones et. al are hiding their codes …
or not.
The thing these
scientists seem to be missing is that a scientist should give his data and
methods to his worst enemy. Because if his worst enemy can’t punch holes in his
theories, then he can bet that they are solid.
Finally, a
scientist should never have to face an FOI as Jones and Mann and the rest have.
Why not? Because making the data public is PART OF THE JOB DESCRIPTION. I did
not want to file an FOI, it's a hassle for everyone concerned. But I was forced
to because Jones and the other scientists are afraid to make their data public,
claiming that someone will want to poke holes in it.
Science is not
some namby pamby game. It is a tough blood sport, where the participants are
expected and required to throw their data and their methods and their claims
and their reputation into the arena, to subject them to the merciless glare of
public view, and to watch as other ravenous scientists try to rip their ideas
to shreds. It’s ugly, I know, because I play the game from both sides. But
that’s how science works.
Science stops
working when some wimpy scientist goes “Oh, I don’t like what those bad boys
and girls at CA are up to, they harass people, I’m not going to show my work to
them, they just want to find holes in it, I’ll keep it secret.”
Damn right we want
to find holes in it, that’s the whole point of science. The only way that
science advances is by a scientist poking holes in someone’s favourite theory.
Jones and Mann want to poke holes in other people’s work, but shield their own
work from public examination. If you can’t stand it when it’s your turn, when
it’s your theory that the bad scientist boys and girls want to find holes in,
go become an accountant. Science doesn’t progress that way, when scientists
hide the codes data.
Given that climate
science is not the study of things but of the averages of things, and that as a
result math and statistics are central to climate science, the findings of the
Wegman Report are now seen to be even more insightful, trenchant, and valid.
They said:
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate
community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not
seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge
that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and
grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer
review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been
sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public
positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that
Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the
millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be
supported by his analysis.
And presciently,
that was written thee years ago, well before we got the CRU emails …
As I said, the
issue is not Trenberth, or the Nature "trick", or scientists talking
smack about each other. It is the illegal and unethical evasion of legitimate
scientific requests for data needed to replicate a scientific study. Without
replication, science cannot move forwards. Free the data, free the methods,
free the codes. Because when you only give codes and data to friends of yours,
and not to people who actually might take a critical look at it, care to guess
what you might end up with?
A
"consensus" …
My best to
everyone,
Willis Eschenbach
willis@taunovobay.com
REFERENCES:
Climate Audit
<climateaudit.org> Climate Audit was started and is run by Steve McIntyre.
Those of us who post regularly at the site specialize in auditing scientific
papers for unsupported claims, logical and mathematical errors, improper proxy
selection, and the like.
An example of my
work at ClimateAudit: <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428>
A Collation of CRU
Correspondence, Stephen McIntyre, May 30, 2008,
<http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf>
CRU Intellectual
Property Regulations,
<http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.130501!FWF31%20INTELLEC%20PROP%20REGS.pdf>
The Wegman Report
< http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf>
The definitive word on Mann's mathematical errors in the Hockeystick paper.
Exemptions under
the UK FOI, <http://www.foi.gov.uk/guidance/exguide/index.htm>. There is
no exemption for "intellectual property" as the emails claim, only
for "trade secrets" used in business.
Listing of Climate
Audit posts on the Freedom of Information Act,
<http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=53> Lots of interesting information on
various requests and responses. Be patient, CA is loading slowly due to the
number of people who are interested in the emails.
"Caspar and
the Jesus Paper",
<http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html>
An example of what Amman and Wahl pulled off with the connivance of Phil Jones
and the rest. This is likely the reason for deleting the emails.
Fortress Met
Office: <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3192> The ugly story of how the
Met Office hid from David Holland's requests.
Temperature Data
Errors in New Zealand:
<http://www.nzclimatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf>
An earlier version
of this email is posted at Watts Up With That, <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole.../
The current
version is on my web site at
<http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Public/The_People_Versus_the_CRU.doc>
