PRESS RELEASE
Stockholm March 5, 2010
Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry
It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.
Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.
This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.
All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.
STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden
===================================
They included attached PDF files. which I have uploaded to WUWT below. Click for PDF files:
Request_from_Professor_Phil_Jones_regarding_the_release_of_data_from_the_HadCRUT_dataset__dnr_SMHI_
Data_from_the_HadCRUT_dataset_100304
Sponsored IT training links:
100% pass guarantee on first try with help of best quality 1Y0-A17 study material including 642-456 dumps and 1Y0-A08 practice exam.
“Willis Eschenbach (10:21:40) :
Harry, you’re not following the bouncing ball. Plain vanilla datasets cannot be copyrighted, they can only be covered by explicit agreements. In the absence of such an agreement, all bets are off.”
1. Willis read the WMOs web pages – most say that the data cannot be redistributed -this is quite explicit I think ie. I can not provide the data on my page as that is redistribution. I can provide a link or tell you where to get the data. This is just what CRU did. The bulk 98% is the same as CRU. The other can be purchased from the WMOs. (at least that was possible after they published there station list!)
2. Data does not have to be explicitly copyrighted. If it is on a web page it does not mean that you can copy it. eg the problems wiki has with copied text from another page – you cannot do it
/harry
kwik (09:52:33) :
And the impression I had, was from correspondence over time, not just a random link on the Internet.
It is strange, that they do not mention when they were founded with a disclaimer that they should not be confused with that ‘other’ Stockholm Initiative. I have been following their website for a while and they have been busy removing earlier petitions…
correspondence over time
How long have you corresponded with them?
In the December 21 letter SMHI denied CRU to publish their homogenized data as SMHI’s raw data.
The Swedish license agreement is here:
http://data.smhi.se/met/climate/time_series/html/essential20.html
The terms of use of SMHI data state:
3.2 The Licensee owns no right to use the data or products provided under this agreement for commercial purposes and not for development or production of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic value added-value services. The licensee does not own nor authorized to redistribute, sell, assign or otherwise transfer data products or documentation without further processing to third parties unless the parties have received written permission from SMHI.
The clause “without further processing” should be interpreted as that if further processed you are free to do your thing! Perhaps that clause is oddly enough placed for Dr Jones to miss its meaning.
I know I’m a bit late into this but surely if you have a request for release of information; that you are not allowed to release ; you refer the requestor ONTO THE SOURCE direct.
Thus CRU should have had a standard (FOIA friendly) response written :
1) Original data by x;y;z can be found at CRU here ……
2) We are not allowed to release data from a; b; c … however you can contact the relevant gatekeepers here (freda@a.ac, bjorn@b.ac etc).
3) the following are commercial organisations and will only release their data for a fee – contact them at…
Anything less must be seen as INTENTIONAL attempts to hide the source material.
The stonewalling is patently a deliberate device to avoid proper scrutiny. It is apparent that not only the scientists at CRU who played these games; but also the administration officers at CRU are all guilty of a criminal conspiracy to subvert the (UK) law.
And if they have lost the original data then how come anyone is paying them or listening to them ?
Excerpts from the letters:
Phil Jones: We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequent quality control and homogenisation of these data have been carried out. It is therefore highly likely that the version we hold and are requesting permission to distribute will differ from your own current holdings.
SMHI: It has never been our intention to withhold any data but we feel that it is paramount that data that has undergone, for instance, homogenisation by anyone other than SMHI is not presented as SMHI data.
TRANSLATION:
Jones: “Hi, can I have permission to distribute your data that I’ve rewritten?”
SMHI: “Rewritten? No, but you can distribute our original data, OR…you can distribute your own rewritten data, so long as you state this fact, and don’t claim that it is ours.”
Jones: “Oh. OK then. Thank you.”
Jones to panel: “They said no.”
kwik, kim:
The Stockholm Initiative is a political advocacy group.
Their Swedish website lists “Stockholmsinitiativets politiska målsättningar” or “S.I’s political goals”.
Whatever their guise, this is politics, not science.
Stockholm Initiative: they seem opposed to biofuels:
http://www.righttofood.org/new/PDF/CHR2008.pdf
I grant them that biofuels may not be a good idea, but I fail to see what that has to do with the science of climate change, but can see how it is part of the politics of climate change. So, I think my analysis stands: that S.I. is a political advocacy organization. Whether or not they are a remnant of the old ISSA initiative may be difficult to gauge [and I could be wrong], but the “Stockholm Initiative” name cannot have been unknown to the founders of the “new” S.I. in Sweden. At any rate, this is politics, not science.
Leif @ur momisugly 11:06:33
Is it possible for you to pay attention to what was said rather than who said it?
=================
Brendan H 10:11:26
It’s pretty clear that the refusal of the FOI requests was criminal. It’s not being prosecuted because of a very short statute of limitations. That briefness may get changed, particularly as a result of the fiasco.
================
Leif Svalgaard (10:37:43) :
“How long have you corresponded with them?”
Not sure. For several months.
One way correspondence; I receive “climate” mails. Why?
In Norway you can download data from the web.
I have tried it. But I never tried to ask how raw it is.
The SMHI web-page is in english(upper right corner).
But when looking for data, I ended up here;
http://www.smhi.se/en/services/professional-services/data-and-statistics/temperature-1.7651
So my impression is, from here you need to move over to mailing them for data? That is disappointing.
kim (11:26:03) :
Is it possible for you to pay attention to what was said rather than who said it?
I think both have to be taken into account, especially when it comes to ‘why’ something was said. And ‘what’ was said was not accurate: “All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain”.
Public domain means: “The public domain is an intellectual property designation for the range of content that is not owned or controlled by anyone. These materials are public property, and available for anyone to use freely for any purpose” This does not describe the SMHI data which comes with licenses attached restricting certain use.
So, yes, I do pay attention. Perhaps the above escaped your attention?
The only question, Leif, is whether what they said is true or not. You may doubt its truth because you think they cannot say the truth because they are an ‘advocacy’ organization, but you haven’t proved anything with your doubt.
So pay attention to the textual evidence. Evidence. Good stuff, that.
=============
Leif Svalgaard (11:06:33) :
“…The Stockholm Initiative is a political advocacy group.
Their Swedish website lists “Stockholmsinitiativets politiska målsättningar” or “S.I’s political goals”…..”
The AGW’ers made it political when they invented the Carbon Tax.
WOW! I missed this one. Ouch. I wonder how many more lies Jones told the Board of Inquiry about NDAs.
Steven Douglas @ur momisugly 10:59:50
Nice translation. Like I said, Acton and Jones will probably skate, but only through destroying the faith others have had in them. And if Parliament weren’t so distracted, one or more of those panel members might like to re-visit the question.
==================
Harry Lu (10:31:15)
You are conflating data with text. Text can be copyrighted. Plain data (i.e. the white pages in a phone book) cannot be copyrighted. So your claim that “Data does not have to be explicitly copyrighted” is meaningless.
Why? Because data cannot be explicitly copyrighted. As I explained, along with the legal reference, above. That’s why I said you were not following the bouncing ball. Here’s what I wrote:
I hope that’s clear.
Look, Leif, this ‘advocacy’ organization has exposed the sophistry Jones and Acton used to mislead Parliament. You should worry about the sophistry and the deception, not who exposed it.
==============
kim (11:37:03) :
The only question, Leif, is whether what they said is true or not. […] So pay attention to the textual evidence. Evidence. Good stuff, that.
The textual evidence is:
“All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain”.
but
Public domain means: “The public domain is an intellectual property designation for the range of content that is not owned or controlled by anyone. These materials are public property, and available for anyone to use freely for any purpose”
This does not describe the SMHI data which comes with licenses attached restricting certain use.
So, what they said was not true on its face.
Leif, see Steven Douglas @ur momisugly 10:59:50
I think the sophistry of Jones and Acton has fooled you as well as Parliament.
==============
kwik (11:37:31) :
The AGW’ers made it political when they invented the Carbon Tax.
I think the politicians invented the Carbon Tax, but just because others are bad does not justify skeptics being bad too, IMHO. Perhaps you are another opinion.
It was a trick, Leif, and right in character with the Phil Jones of the emails. It’s not ‘hiding the decline’ it is ‘hiding the truth’.
And for what, I ask? Temporary respite?
=================
We’re probably not going to agree on this, Leif. But you can trust Jones if you like. I’m not going to trust him ever again, and that goes for a lot of other people, too.
Heh, perhaps Acton among them. How can he like what he’s forced to do?
===================
All-in, this nest of bumblers at CRU and it’s deposed leader should be disbanded. They serve no further purpose with this level of compromise infecting the organization. If UEA wants to be in the climate business, they need to start all over again -from scratch.
Leif, please take a look at lucia’s comment #36770 @ur momisugly 11:21 AM on 3/7/10 at the Blackboard. I think she explicates Jones’ trick as well as anyone I’ve seen.
==================
Uh, re my 12:50:04. lucia’s comment at the Blackboard is in the Spherical Cow thread, the tail end of which has turned into a nice discussion of this controversy. I’d recommend it to all. Also, Bishop Hill and Climate Audit each have strings of informative comments with many telling points.
===================