Anyone who cares has found them by now so I won't trouble you with all the details. James "Gonad Watcher" Annan is fulfilling, with commendable neutrality, the role of arbitrator to which I appointed him, and I don't think there is much more I need to say. That won't stop me from saying it, of course. Other people who have said sensible things include Denial Depot, Newtongate, CM and of course RC (apologies if you're not on the list; oh all right Eli too since he says he needs the traffic). Indeed pretty well everyone with any sense seems to have got the right answer by now.
So I'll deal with the interesting bit, which is obviously me. I appear in 5 emails; one only incidentally, the rest about an interesting search for the origins of the first IPCC report fig 7.1.c. This is a fun topic; there is even a wiki page about it [[MWP and LIA in IPCC reports]] (yes, of course, I wrote most of it). If you're not familiar with that issue, go off and read the wiki page. So: at the time of the first report, there wasn't a good reconstruction of the last 1kyr, and they wanted one, so they found one from somewhere. Unlike just about everything else in that report, the figure is unsourced. If, nowadays, IPCC were to try to include a completely unsourced 1kyr reconstruction they'd get ripped to shreds. However, since that old graph shows a warm MWP plenty of septics nowadays are very keen to throw away all the peer-reviewed stuff we have and go back to this sourceless pic (e.g. ). It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid. Oddly enough, although the text of that email is really jolly exciting - we still don't have an adequat explanation as to how Jack "cooked up" that figure - I do not believe it was purely out of thin air - no-one seems interested in putting it about. As for Ah, you mean A9(d) (I thought you meant A9(a) for a bit). Yes, that looks pretty similar to IPCC 1990. Though not identical - the scaling is different, but the timing is similar. - well, it is strong stuff.
I was going to write up the wiki-wars on this topic; but its past 10 now so I won't. Write an encouraging comment and I might. In the meantime, have a look at (and maybe contribute to) [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident]].
Also, I recommned looking up "McLean".
Late news: you thought this couldn't get any stupider? It has. Reminds me of the good old days in BAS, where the acid test of any rumoured management decision was always "is this really stupid enough to be true?". Usually it was :-(
[Update: apart from the gonads, which I've corrected, I feel obliged to point you towards the comment policy. I was a little late to the party with this post, deliberately so, and while *I*'m allowed to say things that have already been said before I reserve the right to delete silly comments that merely repeat what has been said already. Oh, and did I forget Smoking guns in the CRU stolen e-mails: A real tale of real ethics in science
Update: example of abuse of 7.1.c added
Update: Melanie Phillips is a dull bozo. But you knew that already. "Thanks" Tom
Update: Science historian [Spencer Weart] reacts to hacked climate e-mails is very good -W]
- Log in to post comments
Can't vouch for this at all, just stumbled through a mess of blog postins that pointed back to it, but, well, you look.
(page down or search for the post containing this bit):
Not Dr Tim Mitchell yet, he is just a research student developing the computer models for the 'researchers' to use in climate change Reasearch unit.
Yes, this is the guy harry is referring to in that Harry_Read_Me.txt file, 'what did tim do' while trying to make sense of all the code, recreate data, etc,etc,etc."
Gently, Dhog, gently, you don't want to oversimplify.
You know there are more than two possibilities; I was talking about the broad generality, that someone who really wants a paper published can probably find a publisher.
Some aim too high:
and it's no surprise where you find those reports blogged.
Did someone say McLean? As in McLean et al 2009 in JGR?
One of the CRU emails mentions this post:
Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition actually had the title of the paper as "Nature, not Man, is responsible for global warming", which was also the title of the NZ Climate Science Coalition's press release.
See the other side of McLean and his co-authors Bob Carter and Chris de Freitas, as they co-operate in dissemination of bogus science, in co-ordination with a fringe political party in New Zealand financed by industrialist Alan Gibbs.
Even George Monbiot has bought into the idea that the emails show a willingness to suppress "skeptical" science, citing the discussion of Climate Research. Apparently I got in the very last comment - maybe he'll take it to heart.
Meanwhile for the latest on Friends of Science shenanigans see:
And, yes, the ever constant de Freitas is still a scientific advisor to FoS.
It's an odd piling-on, as the FOIA requests were filed and rejected a couple of years ago.
Apparently Horner (who, along with being a columnist/blogger for American Spectator, is an attorney for the CEI) must think that the content of the cracked CRU server must give them grounds for suing that they didn't have before.
Oh, well, I suspect NASA has had a fair amount of experience with crank FOIA requests and the legal basis for ignoring them. Otherwise the documents proving the moon landings were faked would've been made available to us years ago :)
I'd guess Monbiot is p'o'd at being left off the distribution list, while Examiner Tom Fuller, among others, had it long before it went public.
However, I'd recommend people take the time to read the new book _Idiot_America_ for a very timely assessment of how easily USAmericans fall for this kind of story, and how eagerly they keep favorite mysteries mystified no matter how much fact may be available to sort it out.
This really fits the pattern.
> gonad eater
Also eyeball-slurper, if I read the picture correctly. Of course I may well be mistaken.
"Oh, well, I suspect NASA has had a fair amount of experience with crank FOIA requests and the legal basis for ignoring them."
This is the exact same attitude we see in these emails. My god. Do you really not understand how perverse you sound? WHY on earth would there be ANY FOIA restrictions on basic temperature data and code? Wouldn't you WANT raw data to be released instead of withheld, in order that you would then diffuse the type of conspiracy theories that data concealment itself causes. It is exactly this bizarre attitude that creates cases of paranoia out of what would ordinarily be a simple debate about what the raw data means. How can you DEFEND withholding raw data? How can you defend withholding PROOF THAT AGW IS CORRECT? I assume you believe the raw data and code would do that, right? Right?
[You really haven't been paying attention if you can say WHY on earth would there be ANY FOIA restrictions on basic temperature data and code? - because the Met Office, at least, vies these data as commercially confidential -W]
Not sure what you mean, but my comment #1 does discuss "ethical behaviour among scientists". And it turns out the ethics of the skeptics/contrarians are about as dubious as their science.
[Ha ha, I've deleted some of the duller comments per the comment policy, so your numbering may be out :-) -W]
At one point one of the scientists commented that Senator Inhofe was waving McIntyre and McKitrick's GRL article within three days of publication.
Now how do you think that happened?
One can't co-operate with oil-industry backed politicians, PR operatives, think tanks and astroturf groups, and then expect FOI requests to be treated as genuine and above board.
To me, it's worse than a question of "crank" FOI requests, it's a question of *bad faith* FOI requests.
Wow within three days of publication A US Senator had a copy of a published article. Clearly a conspiracy.
Dear NF, the code and data are available for GISSTEMP. The raw data comes from NOAA. It is also available
You owe us and GISS and apology.
NFNYC at #6: "Wouldn't you WANT raw data to be released instead of withheld, in order that you would then diffuse the type of conspiracy theories that data concealment itself causes... How can you defend withholding PROOF THAT AGW IS CORRECT? I assume you believe the raw data and code would do that, right? Right?"
First, sit down and breathe slowly. There, that's better.
Now, your "argument" presumes as a matter of simple fact that the AGW deniers are pursuing a good faith effort to discover the facts, but that's exactly what's at issue. I think you know perfectly well that Stoat and most climate scientists believe (whether you do or not) that the deniers are dishonest hacks who are just jerking people around, so you're the one who sounds a little "perverse" in talking as if this is a mystery to you.
No amount of scientific data will convince most of the big-time AGW deniers to drop their paranoid conspiracy theories. Climate scientists could release every last scrap of raw data, down to every note they've ever made on the back of their Chinese takeout napkins, and it wouldn't make a difference. As Eli points out at #11, the raw data is out there and has been for a while. The deniers have done little or nothing substantive with it and just keep screaming, "GIVE US THE DATA!"
"WHY on earth would there be ANY FOIA restrictions on basic temperature data and code?"
You sound as if you think anyone can just wave a FOI request and get handed everything they want on a silver platter. It is legitimate to fight "frivolous" and "vexatious" FOI requests and lawsuits, made in bad faith and just to harass, as has been done by AGW denialist crusaders in the past. Such requests are often, and rightly, denied.
You can get the raw data by, say, asking the XYZ country national met service for it.
If I allow you to use one of my photos without giving you distribution rights, and McI asks you for the photo, are you going to be pissed off when I sue you?
If so, why?
If not, shut up!
James did not eat the gonads.
That was me.
[Ah, I'm sorry, I've corrected my post. I hope you approve -W]
> Inhofe, for those who don't know this stuff
No, he didn't watch them either. In fact he prefers his food pre-deaded, and so was many miles away eating a McMacBurger made from minced rats, or some such.
[Oh sorry, I assumed you were eating together. Well, with a bit of luck he has watched some other gonads at some point or another so my characterisation isn't totally false (as an ex-climate modeller I believe that I'm obliged to display this kind of reckless disregard for the truth, though ideally in secret of course) -W]
There's no commercial confidentiality on emails.
What's your excuse for that one William? Do you really believe your own propaganda?
[So you start a discussion about data and code. As soon as its pointed out that you're wrong, you don't admit it, you just start off another hare (apologies Eli). I'm not sure quite what problem you're seeing with the above email - who exactly are you blaming, and for what? -W]
it's a pretty big deal here in the US at least, the usual political suspects (i.e. Inhofe) are calling for subpoenas & an inquiry, Limbaugh & Murdoch/Fox News/Wall Street Journal are running the story a bit. I think it is pretty damaging as it's not just the right-wing Palin-lovin' nutters on it, but a lot of "normal" people have been given pause for thought about the whole thing.
It's a shame that seemingly the entire fields in climate science has this millstone of Mann et al's hockey stick and refusal to share data. And just saying "well there were FOI requests and they were turned down through appropriate channels" is a pretty lame cop-out. It would have been much better if they just gave the data & code 10 years ago and it could have survived or died back then. Now every IPCC report or appendix the UN touts will just drag this story out again & again (esp if Mann et al stay on the IPCC which I'm sure ego will force him to stay).
[I think you're wrong. This is just the latest foolery of the septics. Perviously it was "oh but the satellite record shows cooling" but that all went away when S+C corrected their record. Which is to say: they aren't evidence driven. They are septics; they will find something to complain about -W]
1. It's all available in the case of NASA.
2. The FOIA requests aren't asking NASA for the (already available) data or code.
3. Therefore you have no point.
1. There's no proof that any e-mails were deleted.
2. Jones' e-mail was stupid, however, but if they were really deleting e-mail, one would assume Jones would've deleted that one as well.
3. Scientists are people, sometimes they get pissed off.
4. McI is an ass, and getting pissed off at him, in particular, is perfectly reasonable and sane behavior.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal famously published an op-ed proclaiming this to be "the wooden stake driven through the heart of global warming" (can't remember if they called it a "hoax" in that particular piece).
Yeah, that really killed climate science dead, didn't it? :)
heads bowed, hands together -
"please let it be a super El Nino in 2010"
so the "science can be proved right."
heads bowed, hands together -
"please let there be an extended period of low solar activity combined with a La Nina"
so the "solar hypothesis can be proved right."
The Emails show that Jones and Mann can't be trusted. HARRY_READ_ME shows that the code is incompetent and the code itself shows manual adjustments that have no scientific basis. This is sufficient evidence to call for a thirds party review of the entire CRU methodology.
PR Guy - what papers was the HARRY_READ_ME code used on? Have you any evidence it was used at all?
Re: William's comments in NFNYC #5:
I can see why an individual group of scientists might want to withhold data that they've gathered using their own funds, at least until their research has been published.
But what reason would the Met Office have for treating their data as commercially confidential? They're a publicly funded institution, and most of those who share data with them probably are as well.
[Two reasons. One, they sell it. Second, the *global* weather data is contributed by a network of international observers, and there is (I think) no coherent policy of what may be done with the data. I'd imagine that in the US, it all comes into the public domain - this is an excellent idea. Sadly not all countries follow it. Also, the Met Office is paranoid and has not the slightest understanding of commercial reality. Compare, for example, the UK ordinance survey, who make our maps. They are publically funded UK noly - but they still refuse to release their data for free. This is bad, but Life -W]
PR Guy,do you even know which dataset/product the HARRY_READ_ME code is dealing with?
Just in case stoat's inline response isn't clear enough for you:
It's not "the Met Office", it's a whole bunch of met offices in a whole bunch of countries around the world, and the UK Met Office has no right saying "OK, we're putting your Country X data out in the public domain!". Only the Country X met office can say that.
Is this clear and simple enough?
Back in the 80s/90s, the Thatcher goverment was doing all sorts of privatisation. There were some agencies it was having a politically hard time privatising (esp. ones that worked with military, but even some of those have gone - see Qinetiq). Anyway, they hit on this great ruse of making those organisations "agencies". An agency has to produce a certain percentage of its income commercially. The OS & the UKMO are two such agencies. Thus they sell end-user products (maps, forecasts, etc.) but they also make a lot of money licensing out products and data - one example if the rainfall radar data.
Now the data availability may not have been so free and easy before that time, there would have been technical constraints, island mentality paranoia, hangovers from WW1 & 2, the Official Secrets act, etc. (some of those overlap greatly). Now it will take a reversal of that part privatisation to enable them to open up fully, even if the will is there.
From the people I spoke to in the 90s, my impression was that it wasn't a particularly popular move amongst the staff who didn't work in the commercial division.
I don't know what the general feeling is now, but I should expect there's a lot there who don't know it to be any different.
Sorry, it may have been the Major government, though I'm sure the policies were in place during the Thatcher years. Certainly with AWE they were - which again was privatised.
Ian (Harry) Harris sure is popular these days.
I predict he will soon be asked lots of questions under oath.
Before you give your evidence you will be asked to take an oath on a holy book of your choice, or if you prefer you can choose to affirm instead. The usher should ask you about your preference before you go into the witness box. You will swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give is "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
Good Luck Harry!
In the United Kingdom a potential penalty for perjury is a prison sentence of up to 7 years
Seriously, where did that figure from the first IPCC report come from? It looks like somebody scrawled it on a dinner napkin.
[Funny you should say that... -W]
Thanks for your response. Sorry, it isn't clear and simple enough for me quite yet. Please bear with me.
I understand that the data might not belong to the UK Met Office, and so obviously it isn't theirs to distribute without permission from the owner. So I guess my questions are:
- What interest would the owners have in keeping their climate data confidential?
- When denying an FOI request, why couldn't the met office at least say, "Sorry, the data isn't ours to distribute. Please contact the met offices of countries X, Y, and Z directly."
It seems unreasonable to expect the FOI requestee to go directly to the owners, as in many cases he couldn't know who they are.
[For your first point, they might well want to sell it too. Or they too might be paranoid and confused. Or they may never have thought about it.
For your second, which FOI request has been denied, and what was inadequate about the response? Are you assuming more than you know?
For your third, if you want to FOI data then yes, I think you are indeed obliged to go to the owner - it seems entirely unreasonable to expect the UKMO to proxy for anyone who happens to be interested in Ugandan weather stations -W]
Kevin Davis #31:
Cross posted. Adam #27 answers my first question pretty well. Could someone else please take a shot at my 2nd question:
When denying an FOI request, why couldn't the met office at least say, "Sorry, the data isn't ours to distribute. Please contact the met offices of countries X, Y, and Z directly."
William's response to Kevin Davis #31:
Thanks Dr. Connolley. In regards to:
"For your second, which FOI request has been denied, and what was inadequate about the response? Are you assuming more than you know?"
The question is based on Mr. McIntyre's posting of CRU's letter denying his FOI request. As the letter doesn't say who the owners of the data are, he couldn't know who to contact. Might the owners have some reason for keeping their participation confidential?
I agree that the UK Met Office can't reasonably be expected to act as a proxy for all other countries and institutions. However, it does seem reasonable to expect them to be able to disclose these affiliations upon request.
(Mr. McIntyre's posting of the FOI denial letter can be found here: http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/#more-6)
[Ah, OK. So this has nothing at all to do with the Met Office - this is CRU. I think you could have answered a lot of your own questions by reading the reply that you've just pointed me to. That says it is third party data. It seems fairly clear to me that by the stage of that letter, it has all got wrapped up in legalese. No-one is doing anyone any favours by that stage. Broadly speaking, this is just tough: McI has (IMHO, deliberately) wound people up; no-one owes him any favours or feels interested in extending him any credit -W]
Chris S. #23: "PR Guy - what papers was the HARRY_READ_ME code used on? Have you any evidence it was used at all?"
Google Scholar turns up 146 mentions of HADCRUT3. Some is political tripe (GS indexes "papers" from Cato????) but not all. See, for example,
My understanding is that about 2% of the raw data used by CRU is proprietary. The very word should tell you "what interest" - some of the organizations sell their data to commercial interests.
They did better - they said "we are working on getting agreements modified so we can release the data".
Meanwhile, you'd think that the 98% or so of the data that's already available in raw from from servers here in the US would've been enough to keep McI busy for awhile if science were his actual pursuit, no?
It's not really proper for a formal FOI rejection to say that. The rejection letter's purpose is to state the legal reason for rejecting the request, nothing more.
However, nothing was stopping McIntyre from asking nicely for the names of the organization. However, since McIntyre's been treating Phil Jones shabbily for years the time for "asking nicely" is probably long past. Tough. Be a bastard, get treated like one.
I, personally, wouldn't give McI the time of day if asked.
Oh, some of those inline responses popped up as I was typing mine ...
In the Harry read me file, the programmer comments: "Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project...".
Was a CRU TS 3.0 ever produced and if so does that make all this academic?
#34 - no, not HADCRUT3. The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file is (from what I can see skimming through it, and confirmed by GS on RC) the set of working notes in moving from CRU TS2.1 to CRU TS3.0.
Note that it is a different product (with apparently different stations?) from CRUTEM3 and HADCRUT3.
#32 & 33 - remember that that letter is the response to the appeal. There *may* have been more information in the initial rejection (I've not seen that).
Adam #39: Note that it is a different product (with apparently different stations?) from CRUTEM3 and HADCRUT3.
HADCRUT3 is built from CRUTEM3 and the Hadley SST data. AFAIK CRUTEM3 is built from CRU TS 3.0 or, at the very least, both are built from the same underlying data using code written by "Harry".
Forgot to add this..
If you don't think so, then download the data from BADC (it's free and gridded to half a degree), regrid it yourself, and compare to CRUTEM3 (free and gridded to five degrees).
Not good enough because CRU might have "fudged" old numbers before shipping to BADC? Then you have a job to do. Jones has said that 98% of the raw data is public information. Find something - anything - in the public raw data that does not grid out to something like that published at BADC or CRU. It shouldn't be hard. The US data is all online. Much of Europe is online. Find one half degree grid square in the continental US or Europe that doesn't match BADC or CRU. Off the top of my head, there should be better than 5000 half degree grid squares available to demonstrate fudge.
Publish. Be famous. Be lionized the world over.
> dinner napkin
The list of stations used in CRUTEM is here:
So SM could work out where to get the original data.
I was under the impression that CRUTEM % CRU TS use different stations - unfortunately the page on CRU's server for the high resolution datasets is still down so I can't confirm. I did, however find GS's statement on it: "it includes different stations, and does much more interpolation." from: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-cont…
Some underlying data may be the same, but the readme file explicitly discusses forming the TS and comparison datasets, not CRUTEM3. If the processing and station lists are different, then the code will be too.
If, as you say, CRU TS3 looks very similar to CRUTEM3 and the US data, etc. then it's a testament to how well Harry did his work (that readme file reads rather heroic to me*) - though I'm aware that he also worked on CRUTEM3.
*I've (even today) seen similar messes at one or two customers (insurance, utilities, etc.) though normally MS or MF based rather than *nix and know that they can be a long slog to fix (the commercial organisations can often afford to put a few people onto it, rather than one).
Or he could start with the 98% of the data that's available online to see if that yields a significantly different result than the product using that plus the 2% of data that's not publicly available.
(of course we know the answer since that's exactly what NASA GISS does, use the 98% that's publicly available)
"Or he could start with the 98% of the data that's available..."
Yes, good point. I was just responding to the specific question about how would he know who to ask for the data. Obviously that station list doesn't say which is the 2%, but he should be going to the original source anyway.
Adam #39 (and others): You made a good point in saying that CRU's original FOI denial letter may have been more helpful in referring to the owners of the data. I searched the CA archives and found what appears to be that letter. It isn't any more accommodating. You can read it and other similar letters at the links below.
This brings us to the unfavorable references to Mr. McIntyre: Could someone please point to an example of misconduct on his part? If he really is some crank, then this could be valid reason for not trying to accommodate him. This is an honest question, though I'll probably get some flak for asking. I haven't been able to turn up anything through searching on my own. Perhaps I would be more aware if I had been attuned to the discussion longer. Thanks for your patience.
[Ah, you'll get a lot of flack, you're pushing a viewpoint that is not popular here. But you must have read CA posts by McI; you must have seen how he goes out of his way to be disobliging. If you really doubt this I can trivially point you at any number -W]
doghaza #35: Trying to get access to a small amount of confidential data while ignoring a large set of public data doesn't seem indicative of malicious intent. It could be that the requestor is interested in *how* the public data is being used, as is the case in many of the denied requests. Or perhaps the relevant data could simply be part of that confidential 2%. An analogy might be a corporation saying to its stockholders, "99% of the information about our company is publicly available, so why do you want to see our balance sheets?"
Please correct me if I'm looking at this the wrong way.
Links to some FOI denial letters (they may be hard to access at the moment due to CA server traffic):
[The point you're missing, and that I've made before, is: why do you think anyone owes McI any favours? -W]
Except in this case we're looking at a homogenous set of records, i.e. they're all "station X date Y temp Z", there's no qualitative "balance sheet vs. phone book" type difference.
McI is not a crank - he's a monkeywrencher. If you can't see what he's doing, you're not looking hard enough.
He's pretty much personally responsible for the claim that climate scientists are frauds.
#46 Kevin Davis
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, until you prove me wrong.
So here are examples you may want to consider:
For starters, how about McIntyre's constant accusations of plagiarism, cherrypicking and other scientific misconduct against various scientists?
Or his co-operation with think tanks, PR consultants and politicians who viciously attacked Michael Mann and others for political reasons?
Or his participation in bogus "science" like the film Climate Catastrophe Cancelled produced by APCO Worldwide rep Tom Harris for the Friends of Science, but falsely presented as a co-production with the University of Calgary?
Or his refusal to apologize for, or correct, all the blatant falsehoods written about the Yamal controversy, including those by his habitual co-author, Ross McKitrick (on top of McIntyre's own gratuitous smearing of Briffa and other scientists)?
That's just off the top of my head.
But make no mistake, he's a real piece of work, is our friend Steve.
Carrot Eater (330) asks:
[Ah, thanks for finding that, I couldn't be bothered. I've added it -W]
Sorry, I didn't close the blockquote properly.
Carrot Eater (330) asks:
Here is a more up to date version, in technicolor no less. The deniers who drew up this version must have been at a far fancier restaurant with fancy coloured napkins than mere scientists could afford ;-)
SM at CA has spent many postings claiming that chart comes from Lamb and complaining about William's earlier discussion of it. It's the kind of thing people who like that stuff like to read.
[Has he really? Gosh, I missed all that. Do post a link (whereupon MT will throw it to the back of the moderation queue cos it has a link in it, but it will appear eventually) -W]
IF this ends up with scientists having to spell out every question they ask or answer, with footnotes, and say everything with one eye on Big Brother's Panopticon, I *hope* that IF at least some of it is of this order:
"The Voigt profile is a convolution - no that doesn't mean it's convoluted ... one function is reversed and shifted, no, that's not a hack ... etc."
That there are comments like "Preceding sentence solely for a defense against future science McCarthyites who will read all my mail."
That, unfortunately, is what these people want. Think of the creationist ox being gored, but in this case with billions or trillions of dollars at stake :(
Dhogaza (#19) has sparked my memory...
and for further comic relief...
I guess the "heart of global warming" isn't paying attention to those wooden stakes, nails in the coffin, or being told repeatedly it's a hoax.
On a more serious note, since I don't have the stomach or inclination to delve into all the legal mumbo jumbo of the FOI requests, are all the ones mentioned in the stolen emails that some are crowing about related to McIntyre? If so, that would explain a lot. Were McIntyre or others seriously requesting email contents?
Ian Forrester: That is quite the fancy dinner napkin. Maybe they went to a fancy restaurant that gives out crayons for kids to draw with. Though I still don't see a source.
What's the full citation for Lamb, 1966?
I'm a little baffled by the tone of the posts here. Although Judith Curry's comments about tribalism seem to apply.
William you seem focused on issues like proprietary information as the reason for non-release. I think this is a red herring, as Jones was willing to send data to others, depending on whether he liked what they were planning to do with it.
[Jones was, of course, happy to work with colleagues. I think you're doing youself no favours with this and various other comments. You've picked your side, and make without any obviious irony comments about tribalism. Ah well. So the first thing you need to do is to reference your statements to reliable sources. Youre rather free with "Jones was willing to send data to others, depending on whether he liked what they were planning to do with it" - I think you need to slow down to the extent of actually sourcing such things -W]
This is a long series of posts, but I think there is an interesting thread on the issue here.
[I'm not sure why you find it interesting. It makes any number of very obvious errors, that I hope you spotted - though I'm puzzled why you didn't mention them. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data that they built the global temperature record out of. is clearly wrong. The global data is collected by global governments. Even if we are charitable and assume that WE is thinking of foreign taxpayers he is still, obviously, wrong: much Soviet data during the USSR period wasn't funded by taxpayers, nor the Chinese. And any number of other examples. WE is either grossly ignorant, or careless, or just lying; who knows which?
Next I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. At this point I gave up. WE is clearly trying to prove a point, and was at the time. If you think there is something valuable in there, please quote it, rather than forcing me to wade through a pile of gunk -W]
It started with someone trying to figure out some specific problems that he noticed. That person got stuffed by Jones when Jones seemed to realize that the problems were real. (As evidenced by the code comments.) Then the guy who wrote this post took it up as a challenge because he couldn't believe that a scientist would refuse to send data on the principle that someone else was just trying to find something wrong with it.
[Again, refs needed. I'm not sure what point in what timeline you're on. Certainly, McI had wound everyone up over the MBH stuff. But now you're on about Jones. Please be more precise -W]
I have become a bit of an hobbyist in this area, and have learned a great deal. Almost universally I have found that scientists are willing to correspond with me, and share papers and data. Jones actions were a complete outlier, and his comments about hiding behind various technicalities, deleting relevant emails, and lining up bureaucrats as a defensive wall solidify that view.
[Yes. Because you are polite -W]
As to whether emails got deleted. Well Jones own emails said that they did. Of course deleted emails have a way of popping up in other places.
[Again, refs please. But you have your own blog. Wouldn't it be better to write up what you regard as a coherent version of the story over there, and defend it? -W]
well, this has really gotten out of control (at least in the US Murdoch-owned media). I probably have to moderate my initial disgust. It's more at the level of "Sir Humphrey Appleby refuses a Freedom of Information request." Which is a bit lame, considering many scientists put their data out there, but hardly the end of climate science. Of course people fixated on the "hockey stick" think it's the end of it all, but it seems everyone else but the skeptics have long moved past the "hockey stick" anyway. von Storch probably has it right about keeping this guys out of things, but maybe more because anything they touch turns to skeptic gold, not for any major punitive measures as I thought before.
And McI is a bit silly & his over-the-top pronouncements are hilarious in general. I mean every day the guy screeches on his blog that he's found yet another falsification of data or conspiracy in some paper he's read. Then he obfuscates it with a lot of work in R and his cheerleaders all nod their heads in agreement.
So then when something bigger comes along his head (and website) effectively blows up. Perhaps in fairness McI & McK should release all their emails, I'm sure there'd be some great stuff with Myron Ebell, right-wing think tanks, Pat Michaels, Exxon etc! :-)
Those who think that the proprietary nature of data being requested of the CRU isn't an issue might like to look at HalldÃ³r BjÃ¶rnsson's comment (also moved by GS to the main article as an update) over at RealClimate.
Again I point out that CRU was happy to send out the data when the approved of the researcher. This business about restrictive agreements is a red herring. Why not just hold back the data from the trivial number of sites that are restricted. It is this type of argument that led to the follow on request for any proprietary agreements that CRU had. Which, of course, they were unable to produce.
I really think SM started all this because he thought the hockey stick paper looked funny statistically and he started to look into it. When the immune reaction from Mann hit it fired is competitive instincts, and the rest is history. Sure a bunch of people have jumped on that have agendas. (Which isn't limited to that side of the aisle.)
I totally understand how he feels. It doesn't matter to me whether these paleo-studies affect the overall conclusions about climate sensitivity. What matters to me is whether they are reasonably well done. I think the issues raised by M&M have been significant, and if you read through the emails you can see that the relevant scientists realize that. There are several emails where they acknowledge that. They have gone on to try to correct the issues in follow on studies, but I don't think they are there yet, and it may not even be possible due to the inherent uncertainties and sparseness of the underlying data.
The other thing that is clear from the emails is that it isn't reasonable to argue that M&M haven't published enough. There is clearly an active effort to prevent publication by authors that this close knit community disagrees with. Finding appropriate independent reviewers on dendroclimatic issues is extremely difficult, and if I were a journal editor I wouldn't want to put up with the reaction if I published something by M&M. I mean look at the way you guys talk about them.
@Nicolas: M&M are very good at writing criticisms, they are completely backward in actually doing something constructive themselves. If M&M (and particularly M) would not be so stupid as to publish all criticism, however right or wrong, on CA, including scarcely hidden insinuations of cherry picking and fraud, he might have received the data. Also, the person who DID receive the data asked nicely. McIntyre does not ask nicely, he essentially says "give me the data".
Imagine your next-door neighbour asking you if he could loan your car, he needs to take his wife to hospital and his car was put on fire by some kids. You'll probably loan him your car.
Imagine your other next-door neighbour asking you to loan your car. No further explanation: "loan me your car". On top of that you know he's been in his share of car wrecks. Will you loan him your car?
Just this year, truly awful papers from Lindzen and Choi, McLean et al (see above) and Klotzbach et al were published in JGR.
Have you read any of the papers passed by Chris de Freitas when he was an editor at Climate Research (and simultaneously an advisor to the astroturf group Friends of Science)? It got so bad, half of the editors resigned.
The problem isn't an "active effort to prevent publication by authors that this close knit community disagrees with." Rather, the problem is gaming of the system by "skeptic" scientists to get sub-standard papers published. Typically, the publication is just one step in a reprehensible PR campaign funded by the usual suspects.
You appear to have no idea how truly awful McLean et al is. Even worse, the authors participated in an intellectually dishonest PR effort that used the paper in an untenable manner to supposedly demonstrate that "Man, not Nature, is responsible for global warming".
In the case of SM, there is a clear record of intellectual vacuity accompanied by complaisance with think tanks and PR consultants (CEI, APCO Worldwide, Tom Harris, Heartland etc. etc.) tied to fossil fuel interests. So I won't belabour it all over again here (see above comment for examples).
Markb, thank you for those junk science links ... two chemists at the OISM, eh?
This is great ... 12 years ago and denialists have really come up with nothing new, have they, other than stolen e-mails?
This could've been written yesterday ... or a decade from now ... rather than 1997:
The second link provided by MarkB is also precious, as it castigates a paper from RSS showing that UAH was wrongly showing cooling, claiming that Christy at UAH had shot RSS down and that the cooling trend was real.
Yeah, that stood the test of time, didn't it :) I'm amazed junkscience keeps this embarrassing shit around.
My understanding is that the FOI requests to CRU are all "related to McIntyre" if you agree that McIntrye posting instructions of how to file FOI requests at CA leading to a fairly large number of filings fits that description.
The FOI requests for e-mail contents are, AFAIK, limited to the CEI filings to NASA here in the US, but I might very well be wrong. Who knows what the CA fanboys asked for, after all?
More properly, when the researcher worked for a recognized research and educational institution. McIntyre is a private individual. This is a meaningful distinction. The FOI officer ruled for rejection based on the agreement under which the data may be distributed, and upon appeal, so did the reviewing official.
Your are not a lawyer. I will accept the rulings of UK FOI review officers over your (or McI's) personal opinion until the end of time.
Well first, Nicholas, there's a world of difference between Josephine Public and bona fide researchers in bona fide academic institutions.
And I'd guess that what you don't know (and that I certainly don't know) is the hoops those researchers may have had to go through to get hold of the data, in terms of what they could and couldn't do with it and any ND agreements there may have been. That such hurdles and difficulties even occur with bona fide researchers is clear from HalldÃ³r BjÃ¶rnsson's comments at RC.
And also what is certain is that any such conditions accompanying that data are the antithesis of freedom of information; but CRU must do with the data what they've agreed with the various NWSs, whether that agreement is formal or informal.
Willis Eschenbach was the original FOI requester. While 'commenters on every climate blog in the world' dhogaza and deepclimate split hairs, an actual scandal is unfolding that will certainly damage the East Anglia CRU and the ICCP. Like a lot of scandals, this one will grow out of something that maybe isn't that big of a deal. CRUopia really started the day a climatologist refused to share any more data with Eschenbach because "you'd just try to find something wrong with it."
[I think you're a bit confused here, I imagine ICCP should be IPCC. And WE, obviously, isn't a bona-fide climate researcher -W]
Here's how McIntyre goes about it.
There's a CRU email exchange (see? I'm staying on topic) where McIntyre complains to a journal editor about data access, and "in passing" (his words) falsely accuses the scientist in question (not Mann) of blocking his IP address. He also appears to have misunderstood the modality of data access as laid out in the Supp. Info of the particular paper.
As dhogaza says, McIntyre's comprehension is sorely lacking in several fields including internet technology, climate science and the law concerning freedom of information.
His behaviour would be humourous, if it weren't so destructive.
The question one should always ask:
"What did Steve McIntyre misunderstand, and when did he misunderstand it?"
Jones seemed to ask colleagues to delete emails as a response to these FOI requests. From what I've seen, that's about the only truly inappropriate email in the entire bunch in whatever context, understandable or not. I'm just wondering how anyone could justify requesting informal email exchanges between scientists as part of any FOI law. Data, sure. But emails?
What should be clear that given how McIntyre an Co. misues data (see the recent manufactured Yamal "controversy", and self-serving grandiose rhetoric involved) and given how most of these stolen emails are being used and distorted, it should be clear why a few scientists might be reluctant to share information with political types (even though most data is openly available anyway). Unfortunately, I can't see how an incident like this will help anyone claiming to support transparency, which to me appears to be just a talking point designed to give the impression that scientists are hiding fraud.
My take on McIntyre in general is that the reason why he doesn't want to do real research is because he will fall off the high pedestal he and his supporters have placed him on as folks realize he's an Emperor with no clothes. He recognizes that the best defense is a good offense, and his venues are very offensive.
"I'm amazed junkscience keeps this embarrassing shit around."
I still see folks citing similar information on occasion. Remember - the target audience of contrarians is the general public, who don't know better, and other contrarians, who aren't discerning and don't care how wrong they are.
I'm not sure of the timing of this, possibly Jones was not aware of the actual content of the FOI, or perhaps he understood a flood might be coming, or ???
I've not read the e-mails myself, just parts of what others have posted, but I've seen a snippet where Jones says "oh, the FOI officer says not to delete ..."
Anyway my understanding was that the FOIs were just asking for data but I may well be wrong.
I agree that this ("delete e-mail") is the only "bad stuff" in there, and it doesn't speak to the science at all, of course, which you know as well as the rest of us do :)
Well, he's just a monkeywrencher, nothing more. Everything he does is done in the context of monkeywrenching anything that might lead to action to reduce CO2 emissions.
Is there anywhere a list of all the FOI requests made to CRU?
I've read that there were many, repetitive ones, which sounds like a denial of service attack meant just to cost money and time away from other activities -- but seeing them all in one place, along with the replies, would make it clearer.
I took a quick look at the UEA website and didn't see any list of recent (or any) FOI requests ( some US agencies do publish such a list, NRC for instance, but I don't know if it's a legal requirement or just good service on the part of NRC).
I don't think it would be viewed as being helpful for the cause for McIntyre or the Anti-Team to compile such a list ...
After the claim was made that the data could only be released to bona fide researchers, the expected happened and several people who are with academic institutions requested the data. Of course none was provided, so they moved on to the next excuse. They also complained bitterly about the flood of FOI requests, which they had engendered by making that claim.
You may not like it but people like SM serve a role in science. There is a role in finding errors in other research. The fact that once SM picked on the Mann reconstruction the immune reaction of the whole field lit up is probably a sign that someone should be doing it. I might add that there is little incentive, and many disincentives for academics receiving grants for climate research to take on this kind of thing.
Climate, once again I have to say that you haven't shown me anything that would make me think you are capable of judging these papers independently. I am not defending the papers I haven't read them. But it seems to me that you are relying on others to criticize them. If you aren't, all you would have to do is point to the peer reviewed responses instead of the language that you actually use.
Yes, he's doing his damned best to destroy it, and the careers of some very successful professional scientists.
He's evil. If you support him, you are evil, too.
evil I tell you
Wow SM is destroying science, and scientists through his evil blog.
If you listen closely you will hear your credibility going down the drain.
[Cut. This isn't going to turn into an attack thread on SM. Content, please -W]
Confusion and poor typing are my default positions. Whoever W.E. is beyond a name on blogs is a trifle compared to a scientist who refuses to allow falsification of his work. Would Jones have been more accommodating to Pielke Sr. or Christy, or someone considered completely wrong headed like Douglas had they asked for the raw data and the code? Wouldn't they have a duty as scientists to "find something wrong".
Over 100 peer reviewed papers were published attempting to refute Einstein, whose data and methods were open for all. Of course Einstein developed his theories while working in a non science position so perhaps he shouldn't qualify as bona-fide relativity researcher.
[You need to read things before you talking about them. Einstein had no data -W]
Capt. Harris: Snakebite leader, Ripper Bravo Six, we're gonna need you soonest be advised I've got zips in the wire down here, over.
Phantom Pilot: Roger your last Bravo Six, Snakebite lead we can't run it any closer. We're hot to trot and packing snake and nape but we're bingo fuel. It's your call, Six actual, Over.
Capt. Harris: Snakebite leader, Bravo Six, for the record, it's my call. Dump everything you got left ON MY POS. I say again, I want all you're holding INSIDE the perimeter. It's a lovely fucking war. Bravo Six Actual and Out.
Perhaps, they both work for acknowledged research institutions, which apparently are allowed access to this data.
Now, why don't you think they didn't ask for it? Maybe because 98% of the raw data was already available, online, and that McI is trying to use the 2% proprietary data to "prove" that Jones, CRU, HadCRU etc output is "fraudulent"?
[I've had another random exercise in trying to keep the tone here to what I like. We seem to have reached that point where everything needed has been said, but not by everyone :-) -W]
"Update: all this traffic is good for my wallet: my blogging fees are 50% higher this... month? quarter? I forget how often I'm paid..."
I knew there was a reason why you sometimes post about Pielke, Romm, Kloor, etc. I suppose with the run up to Christmas, we should expect a few more posts about various spats between them. And of course, the timing of this theft was rather good too. Wait a minute...
[My secret plan is revealed :-). Next, the Copenhagen Diagnosis -W]
"Next, the Copenhagen Diagnosis"
Oh goody. Tell us it's rubbish and I'll be able to take it off my reading "pile". ;)
> There is clearly an active effort to prevent publication
> by authors that this close knit community disagrees with.
Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg
Seriously, if you are having difficulty getting something you wrote published in E'n'E, it's not likely because the climate scientists are stopping you.
Who else might be to blame?
Nicolas (#74) writes:
"I might add that there is little incentive, and many disincentives for academics receiving grants for climate research to take on this kind of thing."
Quite the opposite, actually. First, there's no evidence to support the notion that research grants are dependent on support of human-induced global warming. Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Douglass, etc. all receive grant money and all are contrarians. However, there's huge incentive to be contrarian. Aside from being able to earn some nice cash on the side from industry-funded "think tanks", a perhaps an even more powerful incentive is fame. Agree with the consensus and you blend in with everyone else. That's boring. Take a contrarian stance and you don't even need any real credentials to become popular. And when you get ridiculed for doing bad science just claim other scientists are religiously trying to persecute you. Like it or not, there's a huge media market for global warming denial and plenty of outlets willing to legitimize it.
While I wouldn't use Dhogaza's "evil" word, it's pretty clear that the McIntyre crowd adds a strong net negative contribution to science. The scientific community as a whole will never support mass denial of the human impact on climate, so the idea is to slander enough scientists and dishonestly disparage enough studies in grandiose fashion for the public to mistrust science. It's not that hard to do. Many already don't trust science because they believe it conflicts with religious fundamentalism. Get the public scared of government regulation and taxes and convincing them that the science is wrong and corrupt is much easier.
My side is open disclosure and courtesy.
[Then you're clearly not on McI's side, which is good -W]
Per your comment I may put up my own post on the matter. But if you could get by trivial issues like which taxpayers funded the collection of the data, Eschenbach's post only takes five minutes to read, and I think it speaks for itself. That really is a poor excuse to go off on a rant and refuse to read the part that has substance.
[Like I said: what I read of WE's post was twaddle. If you think any of it has value, you're welcome to quote the useful bits, but please don't expecdt me to wade through rubbish in search of one or two "gems" -W]
Nothing I have submitted has been rejected.
> Nothing I have submitted has been rejected.
Posted by: Nicolas Nierenberg
Well, I was referring to whoever you meant when you wrote
> There is clearly an active effort to prevent publication
> by authors that this close knit community disagrees with.
Your perfect publication record is impressive; I don't think I know anyone else who's never had a rejection.
What keywords in Google Scholar will find your publications?
So there are two possibilities ...
1. You've never submitted anything ...
2. The filter which keeps denialists from publishing doesn't exist.
Which is it, exactly?
The Now Show (typically) has better coverage than most of the MSM:
(Can't remember how far in, but pretty sure it's the first third).
Hank #89: RIS Web of Knowledge lists four results for a search with Nierenberg N in the author field. A perusal of them suggests either one peripatetic author or at least three separate ones...
1. Title: The effects of pre-incisional versus post-incisional high lumbar epidural local anaesthetic for abdominal surgery on post-operative pain and analgesic requirements
Author(s): Clairoux, M.; Katz, J.; Kavanagh, B., et al.
Conference Information: 50th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Anaesthetists' Society, Date: June 4-8, 1993 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Source: Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia Volume: 40 Issue: 5 PART 2 Pages: A27 Published: 1993
2. Title: UNIX-BASED DBMS EXTENDS RELATIONAL MODEL
Author(s): NIERENBERG, N
Source: MINI-MICRO SYSTEMS Volume: 17 Issue: 4 Pages: 215-& Published: 1984
Times Cited: 0
3. Title: POSSIBLE IMPORTANCE OF RELATEDNESS IN THE FIRE ANT, SOLENOPSIS-INVICTA BUREN (HYMEMOPTERA, FORMICIDAE) IN THE UNITED-STATES
Author(s): TSCHINKEL, WR; NIERENBERG, NCE
Source: ANNALS OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Volume: 76 Issue: 6 Pages: 989-991 Published: 1983
Times Cited: 11
4. Title: RELATIONAL DATA-BASES MASTER DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS
Author(s): NIERENBERG, N
Source: ELECTRONIC DESIGN Volume: 31 Issue: 18 Pages: 179-& Published: 1983
Times Cited: 0
The early days of Friends of Science, re-examined as a dry run for skeptic science shenanigans at Climate Research in 2003, and JGR now.
According to Stefan Rahmstorf: "At that time, no large-scale temperature reconstructions were available yet. To give an indication of past climate variability, the report showed Lambâs Central England estimate. (Unfortunately this was not stated in the report â an oversight which shows that IPCC review procedures in the early days were not what they are now. We will post in more detail on the history of this curve another time.)"
[Could be. I don't have a copy of Lamb. From memory, I don't think every wiggle matches up - it might be better to say "probably redrawn from..." -W]
Thought you might be interested in this case from the US where a business acquaintance of mine was convicted on felony charges for just forwarding an email. The unit was under investigation at the time, and this email was viewed as asking people to delete emails that might be subject to the investigation. There was no evidence presented that anyone actually deleted any emails, or that any evidence was lost.
I note that the underlying investigation went nowhere. And also that eventually sanity prevailed and an appeals court overturned the conviction, albeit on a technicality I believe.
Even just telling someone to delete or remove materials that are subject to these types of requests/investigations is a very serious crime. At least in the US.
[Not sure I understand you. The conviction was overturned, so it wasn't a crime. Do you mean, such activities can mistakenly be viewed as a crime by the over-zealous? -W]
@Nicolas Nierenberg: I would hope you understand the difference between a criminal investigation, and a FOIA request.
I understand the difference, and I haven't looked into it, but it is quite possible that obstructing an FOIA request carries severe penalties as well. Don't forget that these weren't invented exactly for this purpose.
Here is the relevant US law on the matter. Note that it is much broader than simple destruction and includes deliberately hiding records. And yes the definition includes emails.
Lambâs Central England estimate: it seems there are different versions (it's been updated) and the IPCC is supposed to have used the top graph:
[It could be. The trouble is there are quite a few other figures it could also be. It is clearly none of them exactly; maybe redrawn, as I say. There was a thought to produce a paper tracing the history of the graph; but time is always too short for such games -W]