Nov 24 Statement from UEA on the CRU files

Climatic Research Unit update – November 24, 3.30pm

The University of East Anglia has released statements from Prof Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, Prof Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, and from CRU.

Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research

The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.

The University of East Anglia and CRU are committed to scientific integrity, open debate and enhancing understanding. This includes a commitment to the international peer-review system upon which progress in science relies. It is this tried and tested system which has underpinned the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is through that process that we can engage in respectful and informed debate with scientists whose analyses appear not to be consistent with the current overwhelming consensus on climate change

The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information.

There has been understandable interest in the progress and outcome of the numerous requests under information legislation for large numbers of the data series held by CRU. The University takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piece of legislation. Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.

In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.

The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual series have been used in CRU’s analyses. It is a time-consuming process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago, it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had to undertake. Much of these data are already available from the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network and the Goddard Institute for Space Science.

Given the degree to which we collaborate with other organisations around the world, there is also an understandable interest in the computer security systems we have in place in CRU and UEA. Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost.

We have, therefore, decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed.

Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.

In the frenzy of the past few days, the most vital issue is being overshadowed: we face enormous challenges ahead if we are to continue to live on this planet.

One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.

That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.

Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved. We have responded to these Freedom of Information requests appropriately and with the knowledge and guidance of the Information Commissioner.

We have stated that we hope to gain permission from each of these services to publish their data in the future and we are in the process of doing so.

My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.

We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.

CRU statement

Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.

A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.

This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:

• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.

• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.

• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.

The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.

CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.

One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.

Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”

The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.

Included here is a copy of the figure used in the WMO statement, together with an alternative version where the climate reconstructions and the instrumental temperatures are shown separately.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
P Wilson

Heated email moments.. sustained for 10 years
thats original

P Wilson

Oh “hiding the decline” was written in haste. What he meant to say was “showing the decline”….. right

Unfortunately, running their source code does not seem to confirm that their published work was “of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation”.
/snark

NK

Circle the wagons–
standard procedure for fraudsters.

That is one seriously long press release – just shows how much cr*p they are in.
Unfortunately for them, we’ve seen the emails and files – it’s all there in b/w.

Mac

The Hockey Stick re-appears as evidence for the defence. That simply beggars belief.
What a stupid stance by UAE and CRU, it makes them look incompetent.

Phil

heat of the moment is something you do in the back seat of your car with your high school girlfriend….writing several emails spanning years telling people to rid themselves of dissenters and eliminate/manipulate data in order to acheive your own goals?…sounds a bit pre-meditated to me…

vukcevic

As I said elsewhere, to paraphrase Emile Zola:
“If you bury truth in the ground, it will grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”

Methow Ken

Much could be said about the above official statements.
I choose to focus on just one; where Phil Jones sez:
”My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well.”
Do not ”READ WELL” ?!?! . . . . Do ya think ??. . . .
There must be some version of the yearly Darwin Awards (or if there isn’t there should be); for which this qualifies as a leading contender.

Clark

How can they write this with a straight face:
“There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”

“That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice.”
How to make a Hockey Stick:
Find a system that has a critical threshold such as the fact that ice doesn’t melt at all until T rises above zero C.
Realize that T has risen steadily for the 350 years that thermometer records are available for (http://i47.tinypic.com/261oktj.jpg), so each decade will indeed be the “hottest in recorded history!”
Find that point on the planet where average temperatures are just now rising above zero C in summer.
Plot a graph of ice loss there over the few hundred years.

So if the “peer-reviewed publications by CRU” are of the “highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation” “on the nature of global warming and related climate change” I can only imagine how bad the rest of the scientific investigation and interpretation on global warming must be.
You guys are joke and disgrace to science. Congratulations, you are dismissed…

JAN

How utterly disgusting!

Charlie K

Maybe I’m ignorant, but if the tree ring data is shown to not be an accurate representation of temperature after 1960, how can it be a good representation of temperature before 1960? It would seem to me that if tree ring growth is a function of temperature before 1960 that it should continue to be a function of temperature after 1960.
Somebody should give them a basic statistics review and remind them that correlation does not indicate causality.
The first sentence of paragraph 2 had me laughing though. Apparently UEA’s version of scientific integrity involves hiding data, pressuring peer reviewers and journal editors to ignore opposing viewpoints and avoiding FOIA requests.

Xavier DRIANCOURT

I read in Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research the following statement :

There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.

Unfortunately for AGW activists his statement is plainly false. The material does indicate that peer-reviewing process is cheated with, the curves and data altered or cherry-picked for preventing truth to appear, the consensus wrong, doubts hidden, the temperature of 2000s fundamentaly unexplained by CO2, and more.

If you say things often enough, long enough, with a straight enough face and under a good academic title, then you’re right.

michael

“The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste…”
yes we know, you are allways in haste, because money rans you if the temperature not follows modell simulation.
therefore you are in pretty haste to copenhaben, because 2 more cooling years and all your agw modell theory smells like a dog at the very behind…

Nylo

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The fact that a divergence exists between tree-rings and measured temperatures since 1960, if anything, proves that the tree rings are not good proxies for temperature. Knowing this, you can use the temperatures, or you can use the tree-rings, but you cannot mix them to draw a full picture. If you want to tell the story that tree-rings tell, fine. But tell all of it. Because if we know now that temperatures are higher than the rings indicate, then you cannot ignore the posibility that this also happened in the past. You cannot sugest that we have never in the past had temperatures like today’s. Because the tree rings DO have had the same ring widths that they have now. What is valid today could be valid in the past. What is not valid today could also have been not valid in the past. The assumption that the proxies were perfectly perfect until 1960 and then something happened, doesn’t hold up. Especially when you do not know what happened and cannot explain the divergence. You cannot assure that there wasn’t any divergence problem also in the past.

Pamela Gray

Should anyone understand the political underpinnings of the Wizard of Oz and Mr. Baum’s mindset regarding the symbolic man behind the curtain, one would wonder if the above statements were actually from the original text of that children’s classic tale.

Robinson

Hmmmm, no mention of avoiding FOI requests in there, or trying to get an editor fired, or gaming the review process against certain authors, or complaining about contrariness in press articles. Lots of arm waving though. I liked the science bit. I have no idea if it’s true or not, but I’m much less likely to believe it now.

Pamela Gray

If there ever was a quote waiting for status, that one would be it, “…do not read well.”

JAN

So what to do when you are caught red-handed in scientific fraud and deceit? Continue to lie! Yeah, that should do the ‘trick’ (pun intended).

Mike

Dear Phil,
If you feel that these emails don’t read well and don’t do justice to your skills of composition, we will always be happy to consider reading those that you have not yet released to us.

Aha – this addresses hiding the decline, but this:

The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.

suggests there may be problems with tree-ring data (and noted by dendrochronologists in the leaked Emails).
I guess I better check out chapter 6. Anyone have a handy link for the relevant section?

Henry Galt

Appeal to peer-review. Push the metrics which currently, inconveniently and oh so temporarily go against our belief system. Attempt to wriggle off the hook.
There, that’s better. Now, where did I put that beaker of kool-aid.?

John in NZ

They keep saying the emails were stolen. Perhaps they should say allegedly stolen. The emails may have been leaked. They may have been carelessly left on an ftp site where anyone could just pick them up. The people claiming they were stolen are the people with the most to lose.

P Wilson (08:59:57) :
> Heated email moments.. sustained for 10 years
> thats original
Poor Harry’s Diary is certainly three years of heat of the moment, weekends included!

Henry chance

…….not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.
“There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”
This is peer reviewed. We have all things in common. we hate John daly and Love Algore.
I am sorry. They admit to tweeking the data and pushing the math.

Ken Hall

Considering that we have seen the code and the comments which show that much of the climate reconstruction had as much scientific rigour as “making up as we go along”, and further considering that claims made by sceptical climate scientists of poor peer review practices are backed up by these emails demonstrating the abuse and “rigging” of the peer review process, then the statement above that,
“There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity.”
Reminds me of the cartoon where a mouse is about to be eaten by a cat and it just stands there with one middle finger raised showing complete defiance to the end!

P Wilson

I have it on good sources that when Ben Santer was “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels, what he really mean’t was that he felt courteous to help him with his constipation problem.

lars

P Wilson (09:02:22) :
Oh “hiding the decline” was written in haste. What he meant to say was “showing the decline”….. right
Well his programmer obviously did’t get the memo:

Paracelsus

I wonder if the UAE, the CRU, the Met Office and Phil Jones collectively know how to spell either the words “rubbish” or “baloney”. In any event, I can smell them from a very long distance!

Eddie

Another CYA moment…gotta love it when they are on their heels trying to get traction.

Scottie

Having pored over the hacked emails, here’s my impression (as already posted on the Daily Telegraph site):
1. A relatively small number of eminent scientists dominate the climate research field.
2. This small group has an inordinate influence over the scientific advice submitted to the IPCC, which in turn has a huge influence over government policies around the world.
3. This group fiercely protects its data and methodologies. It attempts to avoid submitting them to external scrutiny by evading Freedom of Information requests, and colluding to delete emails.
4. There is a strong suggestion that, either consciously or unconsciously, data is massaged to fit the AGW theory, rather than vice versa. They will not admit to gaps in their knowledge or inconsistencies in the data.
5. They attempt to ‘rubbish’ dissenting or sceptical views by influencing e.g., journal editors and media journalists. Sceptical views of other scientists are subjected to quite vicious rebuttals and their academic reputations impugned.
6. They consolidate their position by ‘peer reviewing’ each others papers.

What a joke. I like the way the Phil Jones refers to the IPCC AR4 report in his defense. Does he think nobody knows that the chapter of the IPCC report on temperatures, chapter 3, was written by a certain Phil Jones?
Amazingly, he still seems to think he can fool people.
He needs to resign, or the University will have to fire him.

Phil M

Re: hiding the divergency problem
– it just shows how good a job they have done on this
– I am sure that 99.99% of the population (I made that statistic up, BTW), have no idea that the hockey-stick is basically fiction & that the ‘proxy’ data fails to track the real-temp in last 50 years!
(tree-ring proxy data in the NH, BTW)
– and also, AFAIK, the CRU team have no good explaination for it…

P Wilson

and when Ben Santer says he’d like to take those Climate Audit folks into a dark Alley – its just to show them that there’s nothing to be afraid of apart from a few stray cats.

Evan Jones

Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.
“Other data sets.” Like for instance? Nice try. Now about that raw data . . .

“As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.”
Here is the relevant IPCC text:
There is always a possibility
that non-climate factors, such as changing atmospheric CO2 or
soil chemistry, might compromise the assumption of uniformity
implicit in the interpretation of regression-based climate
reconstructions, but there remains no evidence that this is true
for any of the reconstructions referred to in this assessment.
A group of high-elevation ring width chronologies from the
western USA that show a marked growth increase during the last
100 years, attributed by LaMarche et al. (1984) to the fertilizing
effect of increasing atmospheric CO2, were included among the
proxy data used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999). However, their
tree ring data from the western USA were adjusted specifi cally
in an attempt to mitigate this effect. Several analyses of ring
width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise wellestablished
sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do
not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental
temperature records over recent decades, although they do track
the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th
century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with
observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the
interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This
‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, highlatitude
regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In
their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data,
Briffa et al. (2001) specifi cally excluded the post-1960 data in
their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing
the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not
shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’
was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by
Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown
in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued
warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond
which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo
et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the
potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times
at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues
(for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of
investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree
ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed
in this chapter were acquired.

Pamela Gray

“When they finally get to Emerald City and meet the Wizard, he, like all good politicians, appears to be whatever people wish to see in him. He also plays on their fears…. But soon the Wizard is revealed to be a fraud–only a little old man `with a wrinkled face’ who admits that he’s been `making believe.’ `I am just a common man,’ he says. But he is a common man who can rule only by deceiving the people into thinking that he is more than he really is.
“`You’re a humbug,’ shouts the Scarecrow, and this is the core of Baum’s message. Those forces that keep the farmer and worker down are manipulated by frauds who rule by deception and trickery; the President is powerful only as long as he is able to manipulate images and fool the people.
“Finally, to save her friends, Dorothy `melts’ the Wicked Witch of the West (just as evil as the East), and the Wizard flies off in a hot-air balloon to a new life. The Scarecrow (farmer) is left in charge of Oz, and the Tin Woodsman is left to rule the East. This populist dream of the farmer and worker gaining political power was never to come true, and Baum seems to recognize this by sending the Cowardly Lion back into the forest, a recognition of Bryan’s retreat from national politics.
“Dorothy is able to return to her home with the aid of her magical silver shoes, but on waking in Kansas, she realizes that they’ve fallen off, representing the demise of the silver coinage issue in American politics.”
Source: Michael A. Genovese, _Los Angeles Times_, 19 March 1988.
For further studies see:
http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm

Bernie

Now we know what Gavin was doing yesterday when comments on RC were closed.
Jones’ statement about the tree ring divergence strikes me as being weasily to say the least.
The Vice Chancellor’s comments on the FOI issue are pure CYA – and clearly are at odds with the behavior advocated in the emails.
Somebody has made a big mistake putting this out. It seems to me that they are giving the hangman more rope.

Steve Fitzpatrick

Just plain silly public statements.
Saying that the emails “do not read well” is about like saying that receiving a diagnosis of terminal cancer is “a bit unpleasant”. But the extreme arrogance, hubris, and immaturity conveyed by the email messages is the least of the problems.
These statements do not address the most important issues raised by the emails:
1) The clear appearance of efforts to suppress/discredit any research contrary to that done by CRU and their close associates, by any means possible, including a range of improper means that appear tantamount to professional misconduct.
2) Multiple statements of intent to never comply with FIO requests for data, made long before any such requests were received.
3) Requests to have associates delete email messages that might be subject to FIO requests.
4) An obvious confirmation bias (“no science, I just know in my gut”) with regard to projections of extreme global warming.
The email messages paint a very sorry picture of most those involved, raise legitimate questions about the ability of many well known climate scientists to fairly evaluate data, and most certainly bring into question whether these well known scientists should be holding the positions they hold.
These are simply individuals who are not worthy of trust, and so should not be receiving public funds for their work.

AKD

“Where appropriate, we have consulted with the Information Commissioners Office and have followed their advice.”
Oh, indeed.
“The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond – advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn’t want to have to deal with this hassle.
The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this.
Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.
Cheers
Phil”

What is amazing to me is that in the first couple of paragraphs they completely gloss over the “if” of AGW and start right in on the, and I quote:
The publication of a selection of stolen data is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the urgent action which world governments must consider to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.
The nature of the urgent action? You mean you expect people to just take your word on things?
The hubris is simply astounding.

Mr. Independant

“…these aren’t the droids you’re looking for…..”
“…Me thinks thou dost protest too much…”
“…but the Watergate break-in was illegal…”
Boy this is fun to watch!!

Pamela Gray

I sent another post regarding further information on the wizard and it appears to have been round filed. Could you please retrieve it?

Leon Brozyna

Get a lawyer.

Phil M

More specifically, I’m sure 99.99% of the population do not know that CRU are using tree-ring data to tell us the temperature of the earth to an accuracy of better than 0.1C, 1000 years ago, when the same data cannot be used to tell us the temperature in the present day, or in the last 50 years…
(even though it has been callibrated so to do..)

John in NZ

In the statement above, Phil Jones says
“We have been bombarded by Freedom of Information requests to release the temperature data that are provided to us by meteorological services around the world via a large network of weather stations. [b]This information is not ours to give without the permission of the meteorological services involved[/b].”
It seems he is still hiding behind agreements he signs with people.
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer
Tom,
I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the [b]agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them.[/b] I’ll be passing any
requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to
deal with them.
Cheers
Phil

Cromagnum

Did anyone see this: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183
Is Obama’s Climate Czar Holdren involved? Is he in the emails CC?