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.
Lets face it – ‘redacting’ FOI official data takes time…
……..warning , and if I am wrong , apologies in advance. The iceberg , may well be a known troll from various other sites.
I think I’ve cracked it.
Check it out
http://s630.photobucket.com/albums/uu21/stroller-2009/?action=view¤t=temp-hist-80.gif
AndyW35 (14:41:47) :
“this is part of the defence agency and they can tell you to go jump in a lake if they so want to, have a look at the FOI act and all the get out clauses !”
They could. But it’s doubtful we would comply as the location of the lake is also a ‘climate secret.’
Re: 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.
“… find something wrong with it.” is the whole point! To wit, from wikipedia
“Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment… Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.
Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.”
By refusing to release his data for an attempt to “falsify” it, then is Dr. Jones admitting his results are not science?
[REPLY – Yes. Be it right or be it wrong. But whatever it isn’t, by definition, without falsifiability, it is alchemy, not science. ~ Evan]
1. Yes, it is scandalous how leading climate scientists do not make their data and analysis subject to replication and verification.
2. It is even more scandalous how MSM lets them gets away with this.
3. It is profoundly disturbing that politicians are willing to rely on this analysis as they implement measures that have profound adverse implications for the economy — and (so far) for the environment and national security.
4. I wonder if instead of continuing to bash GW pessimists on these matters, whether somebody with expertise and data algorithms could comment on how UAH is diverging from RSS & GISS & HadCrut — the latter three seem to have very similar decadal trends over the last 3 decades.
Alright Tallbloke, explain yourself. 🙂
Henry Galt (08:11:48) :
Three letters. M. O. D. That is who we are dealing with here. Climate is weather as far as the armed forces are concerned. Weather is a matter of national security.
Nonsense. Even in the middle of the cold war, bomber pilots of all countries involved had current weather data for the countries they might be visiting.
AndyW35 (14:41:47)
Well, you forget that we succeeded in getting the CRU station names.
The Iceberg (12:53:11) :
“For the UK summer all you can say is that temperatures have been above average and sunshine has been above average, which sounds pretty good to me.”
Source? I watch London and surrounds every day, most days are like today,
either close to average high/low or below, 21/13C in London with an average of 23/15C.
http://weather.msn.com/local.aspx?&wealocations=wc%3aUKXX0085&q=London%2c+GBR&setunit=C
AndyW35 – “The Met office is part of the Ministry of Defence and so an american based web site can either like it or lump it as it pays no revenue’s to pay for it”
What about an American academic then? Peter Webster of Georgia Tech has been supplied with the data free of charge. Presumably he holds a Top Secret, appropriately caveated British MOD security clearance.
Your thoughts?
Is this the same Jones of the 1990 paper on the UHI Effect used by the IPCC to set the UHI effect to 0.05 degrees celcius per century?
The Brits wear short sleeves in cold weather because they wear short trousers when at school. It’s part of grit your teeth and bare it. They are an endearing lot whose bureaucratic pecularities were hilariously exposed in “Yes, Minister” et seq..
Learning time. Sir Humphrey: “Minister, anything is possible, but nothing is possible for the first time”.
Lesson. Find a precedent. Looks like Steve Mc found one in prior releases to others. Look for more disclosures to other parties. Ask your local Met Office (if outside GB) if they receive or have received back copies of data from CRU after treatment by CRU.
Further action. If you are a non-Brit, ask your Government to write to Met Office or to UK Ministerial counterparts asking for the data. Ask your local member of there is any formal agreement for the supply of climate data from your contry to CRU. Ask for a copy of it, under your own country FOI if needed. But in all of this , be patient and logical and explain why you are concerned and why the quality of this science needs to be audited. In terms that politicians can understand. (= there are votes in it).
Having worked for decades at the interface of serious business and politics, I can sense that the Met Office has lost it by now. One more push now, puff, press down …..
http://www.xcweather.co.uk/GB/observations
The above site is used by cross country glider pilots. Roll over the arrows and you get current weather from sites including operational RAF stations.
Also take a look at this RAF Lynham
http://www.hurford.me.uk/weather.asp
“The information presented here is taken from products produced by the U.S. National Weather Service and other national and international agencies”
(EGDL) 51-30N 001-59W 0M – Isn’t this a location?????????
RAF Lynham not the biggest secret in the world
http://www.raf.mod.uk/raflyneham/
Also take a look at this RAF Lynham
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/EGDL.html
“The information presented here is taken from products produced by the U.S. National Weather Service and other national and international agencies”
(EGDL) 51-30N 001-59W 0M – Isn’t this a location?????????
RAF Lynham not the biggest secret in the world
http://www.raf.mod.uk/raflyneham
Sorry about the first link
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/GB_cc.html
Contains 35 locations that I recognise as military
Roddy Baird (21:39:35) :
Alright Tallbloke, explain yourself. 🙂
I think I’ll save it for a more appropriate thread. Please join up and comment/question here where it can be ongoing.
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=318&p=5969#p5969
Using Google Earth, I can nearly always pick out an ASOS on a military airbase.
This is oh so bad. I’m a UK taxpayer and paying for this lot.
I have some knowlegde of FOI requests. I seriously doubt whether a foreign power providing info would put such caveats on it, this is not senstive criminal/ fiscal/ defence information.
They have something to hide.
This matter is so important because of not only the enviroment , but the billions of taxpayers money that could get wasted if we make unecessary changes to our society
Well, this is a bad bit of news. The more the Met Office resists, the more I have to believe there IS something wrong with the HadCRUT data. Twenty-five years of work is no excuse; it belongs to the British public and foreigners can also request such data. Funny how they are trying to rationalize this as “defense information” among other things. It is only a defense of the indefensible.
I don’t really understand the problem with the methodology behind the Jones temperature data. Station data vary in quality and have to be processed before being compared with each other and, because the distribution of stations in space is very uneven, processing has to be done to remove the resulting local bias. The methods for doing this are not difficult to understand by anyone with post-graduate level statistics, and are very well documented in published climatology literature. Similarly, there are numerous sets of station temperature data that are freely downloadable for various parts of the world. Anyone seriously wanting to recreate Jones’ method and test his results can easily do so for a small part of the globe and publish any apparent discrepancies in the literature. This is the correct way to do a scientific comparison: get your own independent station data, decide on the best methods for creating the gridded data, and then compare your results with Jones. It’s that simple: no secrecy, no conspiracy, just lots of lovely, freely available methods, software (under R), and station data.