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?”

Mr. Peterson, none of you eve made the effort to satisfy any of the requests, so how can you possibly know if they can ever be satisfied? In fact, all of you took GREAT pains NOT to comply with any request.

My little “pea brain” aided by some google time has finally worked out that “NCDC Data” is GHCN. It’s just a different name for the same thing.

Given that GHCN is the base for the bulk of GIStemp and HadCRUT it is no surprise that they agree. They are the same pig with different lipstick.

“Say, where’s Tom P these days?”

Here:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/

“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.” 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 are circling the wagons in Australia as well … this is followed by:

Phil Jones to Thomas Peterson of NOAA, 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?”

REPLY: Not the same Tom P. The Tom P. that posts here is based in the UK at a college there – no connection to NCDC’s Tom Peterson that I know of, except that he’s got a similar demeanor about climate – Anthony

Hmmm… and the FOIA docs leaked via a Russian anon relay site… Maybe I’ll dig my old Russian text out of the “university is over” box and brush up… I’ve gotten totally non-functional in the language lately. But it does have a brazen directness about it that makes certain types of analysis and ‘direct thinking’ flow well… Kind of like “simplified Greek with the Byzantine Bits removed”… (Where French has 7 past tenses, Russian has one, so not so good at precise ordering of the past; but really good at cutting through the flowery distracting frosting to see if the cake is there, or not… )

All three of them point in a circle for validation from each other, and 2 of the three are now shown to be bogus, biased, cooked. Soo….

If anyone knows where / how to get any of: source code, external data description, work product spec, downloadable NCDC data set, etc.

Please let me know. I’ve now put them “on my shopping list” 8-)

Even if all I can get is their data product, I can match it to GIStemp and GHCN and produce a “variance metric”. IFF they are substantially the same, then, well, they ARE substantially the same: biases, bogosities, and all..

And if Inhofe wants the Americans in the streets in protest, go for it.

Block the streets, block the stations, block the airports, get the coal workers, the farmers, the red necks into the streets. Boock the offices of MSM not reporting about this scam, block the White House, the US Congress and the Hill.
It’s the only way to put this on the records.

I find this inexplicable. We’re talking about spending trillions of dollars to control carbon emissions on a global scale because computer models of climate predict a dangerous future. And yet nobody is willing to subject these climate models to the kind of rigorous testing that we require to license a drug.

And yet here we are.

“NASA scientist: Emails do not show that “global warming is a hoax”
No, global warming is a fact. Global cooling is also a fact.

CO2 drives the climate is the Hoax.

CO2 Lags Temperature. That’s a fact. The Hot Spot in the Atmosphere Heat does not exist. That’s a fact.
Oceans are cooling. That’s a fact.
Hockey Stick is Broken. That’s fact Jack.
Take your finger out of your ears and open your eyes
Media Matters lies. Then again maybe you believe in socialism.

The NCDC is supposed to be charge of collecting/archiving all the climate data yet the people in charge of it have been shown to have little scientific integrity.

The true scientists in the climate research community and in science in general have to step up the plate now and correct this mistake. And it appears a lot of them will be required to do so since there are so many others that are perfectly willing to go along with this lack of scientific integrity culture. If you are reading this, that means you.