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.
Another Point that Bill misses. CRU, a university, refuses to send data to McIntrye, contenting that
“Regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the University on terms that prevent further transmission to non-academics”
Problem? CRU sends the data to MET which is not an academic institution.
Opps.
steven mosher (22:05:56) :
Another Point that Bill misses. CRU, a university, refuses to send data to McIntrye, contenting that “Regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the University on terms that prevent further transmission to non-academics”
Problem? CRU sends the data to MET which is not an academic institution
I thought that the met office did not have raw data?
Sam Vilian states “you have a habit of posting findings which are sensational(and)out of line with the consensus” how very Stalinist of you.
“You pimp every smallest conceivable doubt you find” isnt that what scientific enquiry is all about or has it now changed to ‘toe the party line at all costs’.
When exactly did science become a partisan political game where enquiry or dissent is thought to be a crime, departure from the artificial consensus becomes a crime. I thought science was about challenging the staus quo?
The thought that people are not allowed to challenge the dogma and narrative because that dogma and narrative might be actually exposed as mistaken and/or built on flase foundations smacks of a religious doctrine or a political doctrine like national/international socialism.
Would you like me to raise this issue with my MP?
MG
Sam Vilain,
Who is to decide whether he is a crank? We need to recall precisely what is at stake here. There are two significant surface temperature series being produced for the world, the one from GISS and this one from CRU.
These figure prominently in public domain policy materials as the basis for conclusions about the likely future of climate. They are not the only bases, but they are important bases.
The policy materials of which these series form part have excited public authorities in the OECD countries to move to measures which will cost trillions of dollars and require major changes of lifestyle to combat what are seen as likely future catastrophes. The series are commonly used as evidence that these future catastrophes are right now under way in their early stages.
In addition, the CRU series is significant input to the UK Met Office. The Met Office has produced with that as input of some sort what purport to be forecasts on a 30km grid out until 2030. They are urging local authorities in the UK to take these forecasts into consideration when making policy decisions on flood defence, building permits, location of key infrastructure, disaster planning and so on. I say input of some sort, since we are not able to see the basis for the Met Office forecasts, but it seems most probable that they used the CRU data among other sources as part of the input.
In short, there are huge public investments which are being to some extent based on the CRU series. We have to be able to assess, whether we strike some people as cranks or not, whether this series is robust. Otherwise we simply cannot make the informed choices which it is our democratic duty to make.
This is not about whether SM is an academic in good standing. This is about the future of the planet and the human race on it. You cannot at the same time claim that the pending climate catastrophe is of this kind of importance, and then suggest that it is legitimate to withhold data about it on grounds of commercial confidence and whether individuals like each other. Did we not use some technologies in the war against the Nazis because they were under patent protection? If the future of the planet really is at stake, then all this nonsense has to be dropped and the materials and code placed in the public domain at once.
As Hansen did, let us remind ourselves. As Hansen did.
Now, the last time we went around this loop with Professor Jones was on the issue of the Chinese stations. Look it up. We really learned something on that one. All of us, apparently, except the Professor.
Time for a few letters to the editor of the Times etc
Might get a parliamentary response, or a question or two from the opposition.
NickB (14:06:12) :
Douglas Hoyt,
I just found cruwlda2.zip by using the following internet file search engine: Try it!
http://www.gegereka.com/
I have downloaded it for safekeeping…
The FTP site is 139.222.104.250, which on reverse IP is :
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
The Tiempo Climate Cyberlibrary.
And still available for downloading.
ftp://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/projects/advance10k/cruwlda2.zip
Sam Vilain (19:24:37) :
“So what? Most of the cranks in the [snip] also have articles in peer reviewed literature.”
Most of the cranks in the AGW creationist community also have articles in peer reviewed literature.
Pamela Gray:
Please don’t make this into an anti-religion blog. Thank you.
““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).”
I have tried Peter Lilley a couple of times in the past and have got no reply. ”
A shame. But, for the benefit of UK readers of this post, the thing that really makes British civil servants jump (and I speak as an ex-Whitehall employee) is a Parliamentary Question (PQ). When a PQ is asked in The House, all sorts of systems swing into place to ensure that an appropriate answer is given, and woe betide the department that can’t give a good account of itself…
So, now that we are getting down to the silly objections, if a British citizen/resident can find a good constituency MP (and elections are coming up) who will ask a suitably crafted question, Met Office/Hadley will be horribly exposed. You won’t see the results externally – if necessary Cabinet Office will have to put spin on to cut down on embarrassment – but the Met Office/Hadley will certainly feel the effects during their next vote (budget) negotiations. CO do not support those who embarrass it…..
Today 27 July I made an FOI request to the University of East Anglia as follows;
I understand that 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 is covered by confidentiality
agreements and requests for this data have been denied as regulation
12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the
University on terms that prevent further transmission to
non-academics.
Please supply copies of each confidentiality agreement. Copies by
email are acceptable.