Let me review the request situation for readers. There are two institutions involved in the present round of FOI/EIR requests: CRU and the Met Office. Phil Jones of CRU collects station data and sends his “value added” version to the Met Office, who publish the HadCRU combined land-and-ocean index and also distribute the CRUTEM series online.
I requested a copy of the “value added” version from the Met Office (marion.archer at metoffice.uk.gov) which has been refused for excuses provided in my last post. On June 25, 2009, learning that Phil Jones had sent a copy of the station data to Peter Webster of Georgia Tech, I sent a new FOI request to CRU ( david.palmer at uea.ac.uk) requesting the data in the form sent to Peter Webster. This too was refused today.
We now have a new excuse to add to our collection of excuses – each excuse seemingly more ridiculous than the previous one.
My most recent request was as follows:
Dear Mr Palmer,
Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009.
Thank you for your attention,
Stephen McIntyre
The full response was as follows. (I’ve included full address particulars for readers that may wish to follow up):
Dear Mr McIntyre
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – INFORMATION REQUEST (FOI_09-44; EIR_09-03)
Your request for information received on 26 June 2009 has now been considered and it is, unfortunately, not possible to meet all of your request.
In accordance with Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this letter acts as a partial Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below:
Exception Reason Reg. 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the person providing information Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement Regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the University on terms that prevent further transmission to non-academics
Regulation 12(1)(b) mandates that we consider the public interest in any decision to release or refuse information under Regulation 12(4). In this case, we feel that there is a strong public interest in upholding contract terms governing the use of received information. To not do so would be to potentially risk the loss of access to such data in future.
I apologise that not all of your request will be met but if you have any further information needs in the future then please contact me.
If you have any queries or concerns, or, if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact me at:
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
Telephone: 0160 393 523
E-mail: foi AT uea.ac.uk
You also have the right of appeal against the decision. If you wish to appeal please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to me at the same address as noted above.
Subsequent to our determination of your appeal, you also have a further right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 700
www.ico.gov.uk
Yours sincerely
David Palmer
Information Policy and Compliance Manager
University of East Anglia
This is the first time that we’ve heard that their supposed confidentiality agreements merely restrict “further transmission to non-academics”. A couple of observations on this. I’m sure that CRU will soon receive a similar request from someone to whom this excuse does not apply.
However, aside from that, there are other troubling aspects to this refusal. If there actually are confidentiality agreements, I would expect the relevant language to be framed in terms of “academic use” as opposed to guild membership i.e. I’d be surprised if the language were framed in terms of institutional affiliation as opposed to use. I’ve published relevant articles in peer reviewed literature, acted as an IPCC reviewer, been cited in IPCC AR4, been invited to present to a NAS panel – my use of data is “academic” by any legal standard.
Secondly, over at the Met Office, they say “it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept.” But over at CRU, they purport to “know” nuanced details of the contractual language of the confidentiality agreements – clauses that have the effect of justifying the refusal of the data.
Wonder if any members of the UK parliament read this blog. One would have thought any MP worth his/her salt would fire of a PQ (parliamentary question) about this matter.
Steve this is Britain under ZaNu-Labour, figures can’t lie, but liars can figure.
Are the stats BS? – probably!
The Met office is an extension of government and consequently tows the line, long ago all scientific rigour ( in the Met’ Office) evaporated guess you could blame it on global warming. Why let science and reason get in the way of politics and towing the line, too many jobs and reputations at stake, and Mr. Mcintyre they are frightened of you.
I have spent a number of years dealing with confidentiality agreements and universities who create knowledge with taxpayer funding. This smells pretty fishy to me. If it were US government, the presumption would be that funded work is available to all; either through publication or other disclosure, or (if the work produced a patented research tool or other working asset) through nonexclusive licensing to all comers on reasonable terms. Without distinction to type of party requesting the license (university or commercial licensee). University grantees often try to run close to, or over this line, but the NIH has been pretty good at pushing them back. The policy is, obviously, that the taxpayer did not want to see her money spent to create assets that can be left idle or enjoyed only by a few. In the case of weather data, where there is no commercial “invention” worth exploiting, that argument is all the stronger. What universities have acquired privileged access to these data? Where are the agreements? When do they expire? Who approved them? Who paid how much for what?
Keep digging.
I’d say, having seen the pathetic excuses for refusing the request, I would ask them to clarify the phrase, “Adverse effect on the person providing information.”
Adverse effect? Adverse as in catch them out, perhaps? Or maybe they fear you would beat the chap or chapette about the head with your rolled up HADCRUT hardcopy ?
To paraphrase:
“…there is a strong political interest in withholding contract terms governing the use of received information.”
Why?
Because, Mr McIntyre, you are not the type of knowledgeable person they want nosing around and spoiling their little taxpayer funded, government mandated, seriously on-message club.
Please keep up the pressure. Make the buggers squirm!
Curiouser and curiouser…
You could use the Georgia State open records act to get the info from GA Tech:
Under the Act, a “public record” includes all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, computer based or generated information, or similar material prepared and maintained or received in the course of the operation of a public office or agency. A “public record” also can include items received or maintained by a private person or entity on behalf of a public office or agency where the records are received or maintained by a private person, firm, corporation or other private entity in the performance of a service or function for or on behalf of a public agency. It does not include any computer program or computer software used or maintained in the course of operation of a public office or agency.
O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70(a), § 50-18-72(e)(2).
sounds like there cook-en the data to me!
Why not you search between who or among who it has been made such confidentiality agreements, my guess is that there are no such agreements and they are simply hiding that information because of the embarrasement they would experience if the general public knows how wrong they were with their forecasts based on xbox or playstations games.
What are the adverse effects? There is an odd excuse. If I read that right, the adverse effects is that they would no longer be able to access the data if they shared it. Why is sharing methodology detrimental to those who produce it?
Steve,
please keep digging.
[citation]….that prevent further transmission to non-academics…..[/citation]
So, non-academics can’t stand the truth?
Very funny, indeed.
Welcome back to the return of the medieval.
KlausB
It seems like an awfully big amount of effort is being expended with all this twisting, turning and dodging by CRU and Met. This is one cat they don’t want out of the bag.
UK Sceptic (08:57:48) :
If it were US government, the presumption would be that funded work is available to all;
Steve’s had similar issues in the US, though not as blatant.
Mark
I suggest that you contact Peter Lilley MP who is one of the few of our tribunes who has been willing to stand up against the AGW hysteria which has take over Westminster (sadly so far unsuccessfully).
There is also a DUP MP Sammy Wilson who is of a similar mind.
They might have some clout to get the data issued. Peter Lilley is probably the better bet.
The Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker who regularly quotes your work would probably also love to hear from you about this.
Alec J
Regulation 12(1)(b) mandates that we consider the public interest in any decision to release or refuse information under Regulation 12(4). In this case, we feel that there is a strong public interest in upholding contract terms governing the use of received information.
Is it not in the public interest to know if the CRU & Met data are validated by third party reproduction? Wouldn’t third party validation require CRU & Met methodologies and data? And why is a proprietary process needed to interpret publicly financed data? The taxpayer should have uninhibited access to the data path.
May I suggest that you approach the wonderful open country of USA and obtain the data – as you note:
I hereby request a copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and Jun 25, 2009.
You are asking CRU to break confidentiality agreements and they are refusing. Try Georgia Tech and see what response you get. I would be surprised if it is any different, as they will have the same confidentiality agreements passed on.
If an independant university researcher obtains this data for research. Is it wise for them to pass this info on to yourselves?
I’m sure Mr. McIntyre, if you had been passed information which was confidential/or had been purchased by yourself you would not make it freely available to allcomers thus illegally distributing (pirating) data.
I agree that such data should be freely available – but it seems there are restrictions placed by some sources. Is this CRU’s fault!? This campaign of requests will be costing the british taxpayer (me) yet more money!!
“This campaign of requests will be costing the british taxpayer (me) yet more money!!”
Indeed. The price of using publicly financed data for a proprietary product. Your unenlisted partner is the public. And they want to know what you’re up to.
So let me see if I am understanding this.
They can not release the data because they are sure that at least some of it is covered by confidentiality agreements. But since they don’t know which of it is covered by these agreements, they can’t release any of it. And they no longer have the actual agreement but they are sure that the agreement prevents distribution to Steve McIntyre (though other “academics” are allowed to get it) but since the “dog ate” the actual agreements, they can’t produce them either.
So we have secret temperature data protected by agreements that themselves are so secret they were “burned” after signing? And the limitation on distribution seems to be to Steve McIntyre or anyone associated in any way with Steve McIntyre.
This isn’t science. This is a game of “keep away”.
“This campaign of requests will be costing the british taxpayer (me) yet more money!!”
You’re already been getting fleeced. NOW you’re complaining about it? Odd timing. 😉
Andrew
There must be some statute of limitations. Maybe they can release all data older than a certain age. I mean, how “secret” can the temperature of even the most secret military base in 1955 be now?
That there is such secrecy surrounding the data makes me wonder if there really IS any. Did they just make up a data set out of thin air? Have they lost the original data and using only some derivative with the exact procedure used to derive that data also lost and they are embarrassed to say?
They apparently have something to hide and are willing to expend considerable effort to keep it hidden.
Stephen McIntyre
You should simply appeal both refusals as a matter of principle and when you have been denied access for the second time you go to the
Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 700
http://www.ico.gov.uk
outlining your reasons why this information should be made available.
This individual was instrumental in helping to have Parliament disclose MP’s expenses and I am sure that he would demand release of the information as scrunity is clearly in the public interest.
Mr. McIntyre perhaps if you check your local phone book you could find a guy named James Hansen, call him up and see if you can talk him in to submitting a request for the data for you. If they turn him down as well, you will at least have a great headline for a press release.
I’m certain that Obama’s administration as one of full open government and science will get to the bottom of this non-disclosure… He’s probably turning the wheels as we speak…. if he can get into city police matters then surely this is within his personal purview…
This is the bureau (Met office) that has made the most catastrophic errors in seasonal climate prediction, and regular daily errors in weather prediction. Its costs us, the taxpayer, some £89Million per year for this non information. I wouldn’t have thought, however, that temperatures were a matter of censorship and secrecy.
so yes, we are being fleeced over here.
to their credit howqever, in ther past whwen they understood weather and climate, they were outstanding at predicting the short term weather
I am sure it is not covered by secret stuff it is simply commercial data (i.e. normally paid for). Just see if you can obtain the data at no cost from all the sites.
If these commercial interests are willing to give CRU the data under the condition it is not passed on then surely that is OK?
If CRU have agreed to this then that is ok?
If these agreements were by word of mouth 20 years ago then there would be no records. isn’t that OK?
If they were written agreements then digging them out from past encumbents lair may be more trouble than it is worth?
Haven’t CRU given the data to Peter Webster at Georgia Tech because they are a bon fife place of learning.
Doesn’t that prove that the data is not secret?
As I said – get it if you can from Georgia Tech if this is public domain data.
The data does not seem to be hidden to me!
Those who have manipulated and misrepresented Earth’s temperature data should be held responsible for wasting our limited resources on this phony fight against global warming. Our resources would be much better spent on development aid for farming instruction, clean water resources, vitamins, medical services, inexpensive energy, disaster relief, etc. and instead our resources are being funneled into the pockets of the Global Warmists. The Global Warming Debacle will likely dwarf the magnitude of Bernie Madoff’s scheme and hopefully the prison sentences of those responsible will dwarf Mr Madoff’s sentence. There’s nothing like spending the rest of your life measuring the long term temperature trends in Cell Block D, right Mr. Palmer?