For all of our UK readers, now is the time for all good citizens to come to the aid of their country (and science). The Met Office refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset after being asked repeatedly. Without the data and procedures there is no possibility of replication, and without replication the Hadley climate data is not scientifically valid. This isn’t just a skeptic issue, mind you, others have just a keen an interest in proving the data.
What is so bizarre is this. The FOI request by Steve McIntyre to the Met Office was for a copy of the data sent to Peter Webster. If the restrictions on the data hold for Steve McIntyre, why did they not prevent release of the data to Webster?
When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones famously replied:
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.
This is just wrong on so many levels. This isn’t state secrets, it is temperature data gathered from weather stations worldwide and the methodology of collating and processing it. Much of the weather station data is available online and live via hundreds of Internet sites, so the argument that “strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released” is in my opinion, bogus. You can get a list of CRU stations. Go to: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/landstations/ and download the file: crustnsused.txt
And then look up any number of these stations on the Internet and get the data.
The fact that Hadley/Met Office repeatedly refuses to disclose the data and methodology only deepens the likelihood that there is something amiss and Hadley does not want to be caught out on it.
Dr. Jones is looking more and more like a “very bad Wizard” with each denied FOI request.
Science and scientists should demand open access to this data. If GISS can do it, why not Hadley? They share much of the same data.
Steve McIntyre tells the complete story below. My advice to UK readers, start sending an FOI request every week and complain loudly to your UK representatives and write letters to the editor. Details are in the body of the post below. – Anthony
UK Met Office Refuses to Disclose Station Data Once Again
It must be humiliating for the UK Met Office to have to protect Phil Jones and CRU. Even a seasoned bureaucrat must have winced in order to write the following:
Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.
Here is the complete text of the UK Met Office’s most recent refusal of their station data.
Our Ref: 22-06-2009-131902-003 23 July 2009
Dear Mr McIntyre
Request for Information – Information not Held and Refusal to Disclose Information
Your correspondence dated 9 June 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Ministry of Defence is permitted to withhold information where exceptions are considered justifiable.
You asked “You stated that CRUTEM3 data that you held was the value added data. Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004, please provide me with this data in the digital form, together with any documents that you hold describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled and where deemed appropriate, adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences”.
Your request has been assessed and this letter is to inform you that the Met Office does hold some information covered by the request. We do not hold documents describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled or adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences.
The information held by the Met Office is withheld in accordance with the following exceptions pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004:
• Section 12 (5) (a) Information likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any International organisation;
• Section 12 (5) (e) Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.
• Section 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) The supplier was not under legal obligation to supply the information and has not consented to its disclosure.
As the above exceptions are qualified exceptions, a public interest test was undertaken by the Met Office to consider whether there are overriding reasons why disclosure of this information would not be in the public interest. The Met Office has duly considered these reasons in conjunction with the public interest in disclosing the requested information, in particular the benefits of assisting the public having information on environmental information, whereby they would hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation.
Access to environmental information is particularly important as environmental issues affect
the whole population.
Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (a)
Much of the requested data comes from individual Scientists and Institutions from several countries. The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released. If any of this information were released, scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data information was provided.
We considered that if the public have information on environmental matters, they could hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered. Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains private is disclosed.
Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (e)
The information is also withheld in accordance with the exception under regulation 12 (5) (e) because the information comprises of Station Data which are commercially sensitive for many of the data sources (particularly European and African Meteorological services) release of any data could adversely affect relationships with other Institutions and individuals, who may plan to use their data for their own commercial interests. Some of this is documented in Hulme, 1996 but this is not a globally comprehensive summary.
The Met Office are not party to information which would allow us to determine which countries and stations data can or cannot be released as records were not kept, or given to the Met Office, therefore we cannot release data where we have no authority to do so. Competitors or collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and could affect their ability to trade.
The Met Office uses the data solely and expressly to create a gridded product that we distribute without condition.
Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) and (iii)
The information is also withheld in accordance with the exception under regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) as Professor Jones was not legally bound to release the data to the Met Office and has not consented to the disclosure to any other party. As stated above in 12 (5) (a) Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept. The Met Office received the data from Professor Jones on the proviso that it would not be released to any other source and to release it without authority would seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.
I hope this answers your enquiry.
If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail CIO-XD@mod.uk). Please note that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end.
If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner’s website, www.ico.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Marion Archer
FOI Manager
Submit a Freedom of Information request to Phil Jones’ employer:
The FOI officers are: Met Office marion.archer [at] metoffice.gov.uk and
CRU david.palmer [at] ues.ac.uk
This is just for UK citizens.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/
A petition asking for CRU source code.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is a pattern emerging:
GISS, with dubious ways to handle data. MetOffice, afraid to have people look for problems with how they handle data.
When AGW falls into popular disrepute, and people start performing critical reviews, its promoters will not fare well.
@ur momisugly E.M.Smith (02:13:22) :
As much as I’d like to see the data and methods, I can understand the bureaucratic mindset that says not to release it, especially if a lot of the station data are from military runways and includes LAT / LONG it would be a dream list for folks planning how to take out airports in battle…
Maybe a single FOI just for methods would divorce the methods data from the “location of airports” data…
Ever hear of Google Earth? It will flag every airport in the world automatically. Type in “Military bases” in the search bar and it will flag them for you. And if that isn’t enough you can go to http://www.globalsecurity.com and find tons of info on location, equipment, etc. for the entire planet. That excuse is bogus.
This entire response from the Met Office is pure unadulterated BS.
All we need to be able to say now is
“Ding Dong the Witch is dead”
Just to let you cousins across the pond know, this last month has been heavy rain interspersed with sunshine. A typical British Summer which historically forced millions of Brits overseas in search of sunshine.
Hey but that’s weather not climate?
Or is it weather in a temperate zone, during the Holocene?
Remember Comment is Free if you agree.
My suggestion is that until the data and methodology is released whenever Hadcrut or the Met or UEA is referred to on a blog, state the links have no credibilty because they are refusing to release the information.
That aint working that’s not the way yah do it
You raise the temperature by a few degrees
Yea That’s the way to do it
Global warming and the money is free
If you snip the last bit you will completely ruin a budding career as a song writing plagiarist.
I noticed the July economic report in the USA has also gone on holiday.
Why do governments do this, it just makes things worse. The truth will not remain hidden. I have come to believe that land temperature is only useful to the hoaxers. I mean, don’t they get paid to maintain their stations and siting? What’s the money for if not to maintain the measurement system at peak efficiency and accuracy.
Unless that’s not what they want.
It should be noted that anybody – not just UK citizens can make a Freedom of Information request (or an environmental information act request).
You can do it by email and you also don’t even need to give your actual name (the act just asks for A name).
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com allows you to make a request online and anonymously (if desired) – with the request you make and the follow up received all being publicly accessible.
So go on – lets start sending them in!
Oops, problem with typing in the dark!
The link is http://www.whatdotheyknow.com
I agree with what has been said so far, about the methodology being requestd as Anthony has stated that much of the data is available from the web.
I don’t accept the military argument per se, although I can see one or two tinpot banana republics strutting their stuff & sabre rattling, which could cause a mild embarrassment for a short while, until a few million squid is payed over for aid, like fertilizer for crops, which can then be turned into IED’s for blowing little up the ocassional soldier, for instance.
The scientific method is being abused blatantly, but British bureaucracy has always dealt in deceipt, lies, obfuscation, we’re masters at it, probably the only thing we’re any good at any more! Having an FOI Act like ours, toothless, smacks of the old ‘D’ Notice favoured by governments old & new, where either a 30 years or 60 year rule is applied so that when the truth finally emerges, the guilty will be free of redress as they’ll be 6ft (1.828m) under in old money. Let’s go for the methodology then!
The Met Office is suffering from great embarrassment, although I expect many on the inside wish they hadn’t bought in to AGW so readily. Piers Corbyn is absolutely right, but he has to get into the public’s view on the msm, but Auntie Beeb has such a strangle hold on this thing it’s almost impossible to do so, & the Independents aren’t much better.
Do we all independently make a request for this information, or do so via a petition with as many signatories as possible? I would have though the latter may produce the desired effect but who knows?
Question: If the GISS and the HadCrut datasets are both suspect what global temp dataset can be used to determine long-term global trends?
Dan B
Solar cycle linked to global climate, drives events similar to El Nino and La Nina -Provided by NCAR, Boulder, CO
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=8466
ABSTRACT
The forced response coincident with peaks in the 11-yr decadal solar oscillation (DSO) has been shown to resemble a cold event or La Niña–like pattern during December–February (DJF) in the Pacific region in observations and two global coupled climate models. Previous studies with filtered observational and model data have indicated that there could be a lagged warm event or El Niño–like response following the peaks in the DSO forcing by a few years.
Sad Science (02:50:26) :
Met Office ‘Barbecue summer’ hopes dashed by Piers Corbyn
“These events and short medium and long range forecasts now active spell failure for the Met Office forecast of a ‘barbecue summer’ which we advised our own forecast users to ignore. This is the third wet summer for Britain
What a load of tosh!!!
May-June in Gloucestershire was sunny and hot – we had a number of bbqs
July has been wet cold hot sunny in equal proportions (didn’t wimbledon not get rained off this year?)
The Met Office long range forecasts will continue to fail because they are founded on the politically motivated false theory of man-made global warming and related computer models. .
What!!! The local weather is not determined by GCMs (Global!!!!)
What would be the point of using incorrect models that continually predict incorrectly. They would use models based on UK conditions. as all they are going to do is predict weather not climate!!!! They would TRY for the baest accuracy possible for UK .
The fact is the world has been cooling for at least 7 years while CO2 has been rapidly risingOur proven science explains why and shows the world cooling will generally continue at least to 2030 and the world will remain generally cooler than recently for a hundred years
What proven science? There is no more proof of no AGW as there is of AGW. Even using the “world cooling” is a bit over the top considering the temp has stabilised recently (as it has done a number of times in the last few decades. This is the nature of the climate beast. Temps may rocket this year or fall next. Until it happens no one knows.
GHGs are a blanket round the world changing the radiation budget. Heat (radiation) in must equal heat out for a stable temperature. Change the sun’s output and temperature of the world will change until heat radiated at a new temperature = heat input. Change the blanket type/thickness and heat radiated at a certain temperature will change. Make the heat loss less at a specific temperature and the temperature must rise to make outgoing radiation again equal incoming radiation. (there are of course other factors changing the radiation budget – e.g. cloud/ice albedo)
THE RADIATION BUDGET IS EVERYTHING
Under the blanket all hell can break loose. Wind patterns, Ocean Currents, Ocean oscillations all affect the global temperature but have little effect on the radiation budget. Indeed cold areas will radiate less heat to space causing the input to exceed the output radiation, and so the world warms (negative feedback).
These sort of things can be classed as weather.
These sort of things can cause global cooling/warming on a short time scale.
BUT if the GHGs/solar output, for example, are still causing the radiation budget to be more in than out then temperature will again rise when transient cooling event finishes.
Time will tell.
PS
Please be careful using the terms such as crooks, fraudsters etc against named or implied individuals. You could be setting up the blog owner and yourself with a defamation case in the UK courts (in defamation in uk you are guilty unless YOU can prove innocence). It only costs £2k to bring the case but could cost the defendants £100ks to prove innocence.
Please be careful!!
A case in question:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1797.html
Your details can be forced out of the blog owner with a Norwich Pharmacal application:
http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=14609
I think this is just for UK citizens.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/
A petition asking for CRU source code.
I’ve signed so they’ll be watching me now LOL
DaveE
If they are not guilty of hiding something, then they should have no problem with people looking at their code…..
An appropriate video
Anthony: I did not request the PEter Webster version from the Met Office. That is the subject of a separate request to CRU which is presently outstanding. The request to the Met Office, as stated in the request and reply, was for the “value added” version as the Met Office possessed it.
Non-UK citizens can submit FOI requests as well, so don’t feel encumbered. Rather than signing petitions or that sort of piling on, I’d prefer that we make up a list of countries and divide them up, with each reader making a separate FOI request for a small number of countries. I’m going to request a few key countries and will post a copy of my letter at CA later today and will correspond with Anthony about this.
E.M.Smith (02:13:22): If this data is held secret then it should not be used for climate research. Let the military use it, but if it isn’t public it can’t be subjected to verification. Therefore, it should be considered tainted until proven otherwise.
DaveE (05:41:47) :
I’ve just signed too. I’ll be writing to my MP as well.
By the way, The Wizard of Oz is one of my all time favourite movies!
The unfortunate supposition is that the men behind our curtain believe they are, “Very good men, just very bad wizards.” This train veered off track when the idea of energy sustainability became the vehicle for agitprop activists to overthrow capital finance. The virtual designers of this attack figured to break energy monopolies via “carbon” taxes and redistribute it to their political ideologues. In other words, the science got kidnapped by politics.
Unlike the Wizard of Oz, our activists, on the cusp of having the curtain thrown back – are fighting tooth and nail to avoid global embarrassment. The giant smoke and mirror publicity machine is wheezing its way toward a wall of disbelief – there to be confronted by cries of, “Humbug!”
I thought the UK’s Royal Society might have comment on this business. It was readily apparent (under “climate”) at http://www.royalsociety.org that they are simply an extension of the IPCC. It is worse than the National Academy of Sciences here in the US.
I suppose it should not be a surprise that these organizations, as extensions of their respective governments, have become purely political instead of scientific.
Walter
And that is exactly why they have to deal with FOI requests and they have someone in charge of answering FOI requests. FOI requires open access to information from such organizations.
The saying “British Rubbish” that was used to describe the technical quality of British made cars in the seventies and the eighties, now applies to the weather and climate forecasts made by the Met Office. Sounds good hey, “British Rubbish”!
I’ve just signed too. I know it’s only open to UK citizens, but could you maybe place the link higher up please Anthony?
The petition has the name wrong – it’s Climatic Research Unit and seems to be mixed up between CRU (part of Univ of East Anglia) and the Met Office. This should be rectified or it will be used to discredit the petition.
Dear Marion Archer, FOI Manager,
Thank you for your carefully worded rejection of the FOI request.
Although you and your superiors likely think it read as an adequate and legitimate rationale for the rejection it is the stuff of an entirley corrupted public institution.
Any half wit can read right through the lens of deceit you thought would serve you well.
I can only hope that someday, somehow, and soon, you and yours will be held accountable with genuine and harsh consequences for your actions.
CRU has also refused to provide the data on the basis that their confidentiality agreements prevent distribution to “non-academics”. See CA today for details.
I would not be surpized if the issue were more to do with sloppy data management rather than temp bias. Before sites like WUWT, govt temp agencies were pretty sleepy organizations with very little public accountability. As a result, internal data handling and processing may have not very crisp.
If possible, one might try requesting a more modern dataset and methodology, something they could clean up with a couple of months work (ie, in the sense of properly documenting, not manupulating), say, last 5-10 years and current methodology.
I would also make a ‘going-forward’ request, ie, that going forward they provide all data and methodology. This would create internal pressure to clean up their processes and provide them a reason to seek additional funding, if necessary, from the government to achieve suitable data management and processing integrity. That’s a healthy kind of pressure.
It’s not everything, but it would move the boulder in the right direction.