You’d think that after all the pain and suffering caused by Climategate to the University of East Anglia and the Climate Research Unit, these guys would have a clue. You’d think that they’d want to get the monkey off their backs, and move on to other research, other issues, instead of repeating the same behavior that got them into trouble in the first place. As the late great John Belushi might say: But nooooooooo!
Steve McIntyre sums it up succinctly:
The easiest way for the climate science to “move on” would be to voluntarily disclose the list of sites and the regional chronology rather than fighting FOI tooth-and-nail. This request is not going to disappear.
This in in response to his latest FOI request for tree ring data, which was denied.
He writes of the denial:
Not only did East Anglia refuse my request for the regional chronology, they even refused to identify the sites. The University claimed that even identifying the sites would result in “financial harm” to the university though an adverse impact on their “ability to attract research funding”. See [the refusal] here.
It’s hard to imagine an institution purporting to justify its conduct in such crass commercial terms.
I suppose this would be to point where we all go Michael Tobis on them and launch a fusillade, but it will accomplish nothing.
I’d like to point out what Steve wrote about Yamal and its role in Climategate:
Yamal was not an incidental issue in Climategate. As noted in my recent post, Phil Jones’ first reaction to Fred Pearce was that Climategate was about Yamal. Refusing essential documents on Yamal simply fuels suspicion.
The reason for that becomes clear in this climategate email from Monday Oct 5 2009 – email # 1254751382.txt written just over a month before Climategate happened. Colored text mine:
David Schnare wrote: [to Tom Wigley]
Tom:
Briffa has already made a preliminary response and he failed to explain his selection procedure. Further, he refused to give up the data for several years, and was forced to do so only when he submitted to a journal that demanded data archiving and actually enforced the practice.
More significantly, Briffa’s analysis is irrelevant. Dendrochonology is a bankrupt approach. They admit that they cannot distiguish causal elements contributing to tree ring size. Further, they rely on recent temperature data by which to select recent tree data (excluding other data) and then turn around and claim that the tree ring data explains the recent temperature data. If you can give a principled and reasoned defense of Briffa (see the discussion on Watt’s website) then go for it. I’d be fascinated, as would a rather large number of others.
None of this, of course, detracts for the need to do research on geoengineering. David Schnare
That’s pretty damning. Wigley responds:
At 02:59 05/10/2009, you wrote:
David,
This is entirely off the record, and I do not want this shared with
anyone. I hope you will respect this. This issue is not my problem, and I await further developments. However, Keith Briffa is in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and I was Director of CRU for many years so I am quite familiar with Keith and with his work. I have also done a lots of hands on tree ring work, both in the field and in developing and applying computer programs for climate reconstruction from tree rings. On the other hand, I have not been involved in any of this work since I left CRU in 1993 to move to NCAR. But I do think I can speak with some modicum of authority. You say, re dendoclimatologists, “they rely on recent temperature data by which to *select* recent tree data” (my emphasis). I don’t know where you get this idea, but I can assure you that it is entirely wrong. Further, I do not know the basis for your claim that “Dendrochonology is a bankrupt approach”. It is one of the few proxy data areas where rigorous multivariate statistical tools are used and where reconstructions are carefully tested on independent data. Finally, the fact that scientists (in any field) do not willingly share their hard-earned primary data implies that they have something to hide has no logical basis.
Tom.
Phil Jones responds:
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
Date: Mon Oct 5 10:03:02 2009
Tom,
Thanks for trying to clear the air with a few people. Keith is still working on a response. Having to contact the Russians to get some more site details takes time. Several things in all this are ludicrous as you point out. Yamal is one site and isn’t
in most of the millennial reconstructions. It isn’t in MBH, Crowley, Moberg etc. Also picking trees for a temperature response is not done either. The other odd thing is that they seem to think that you can reconstruct the last millennium from a few proxies, yet you can’t do this from a few instrumental series for the last 150 years! Instrumental data are perfect proxies, after all.
[1]http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html
This one is wrong as well. IPCC (1995) didn’t use that silly curve that Chris Folland or Geoff Jenkins put together.
Cheers
Phil
Bollocks ! This point comes to mind: if you have nothing to hide, and the data provenance has “rigorous multivariate statistical tools are used and where reconstructions are carefully tested on independent data” then sharing it for replication shouldn’t be a problem at all. If this “science” can’t stand independent testing, then it isn’t science at all.
I think we need to help Steve get this data. For that, a website now exists to facilitate the submissions of FOI requests, and UEA has an entry:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/new/university_of_east_anglia
Read this before writing your Freedom of Information request
- Browse other requests to ‘University of East Anglia’ for examples of how to word your request.
- Write your request in simple, precise language.
- Ask for specific documents or information, this site is not suitable for general enquiries.
- Keep it focused, you’ll be more likely to get what you want (why?).
- This site is public. Everything you type and any response will be published.
Don’t make frivolous requests, keep it focused to the task at hand. Use Steve McIntyre’s submission here to formulate your request.
Reading the rejection may also prove useful.
CRU and their supporters won’t like this, and those submitting FOI requests for this data will once again be accused of “harassment” for asking for it repeatedly. CRU knows what they need to do, we just need to make sure they listen to themselves.
However, if this stonewalling keeps up, and CRU does not allow independent testing, I would not be at all surprised to find another batch of damning emails and documents, maybe even the data itself, anonymously dropped on the doorsteps of climate blogs worldwide by friends of “Setec Astronomy“.
Get a clue, CRU.
There are probably several ‘things’ going on at once here:
1. The data, if made public, will prove an ‘over extension’ of significance in the conclusions as presented;
2. I suspect the exact data set being requested could be proving hard to locate.
The systematic FOI smoke screen being used against what are essentially valid requests for publicly funded information speak volumes about potentially how disorganized they could indeed be. Quite shameful really.
jorgekafkazar said: “But knowing the specious mindset of dildoclimatologists, it’s likely that they consider picking series to be something different from picking trees.”
Tilo Reber says: It is different in that it is picking groups of trees instead of individual trees. But since there are many series to choose from to create a proxy, the opportunity to cherry pick in order to get correlation still exists…
Absolutely.
Surely a counter argument to “identifying the sites would result in “financial harm” to the university though an adverse impact on their “ability to attract research funding” ”
would be “Providing the data requested, thereby proving what we have said all along, would ensure future funding by showing how significant and important our ongoing research is”.
Or maybe they can see the end is in sight for their future funding if they do release the information. The Gravy Train is approaching the end of the line. It was always about the money.
It’s not that they won’t reveal data, it’s that they can’t. There isn’t any. They made it all up. That’s why they’re so defensive – they live in mortal dread of being found out.
As has already been pointed out, it’s the funding, stupid!
In summary:
The science is settled.
The science is a secret.
No transparency=instant no trust, I’m afraid, Mr Jones, Wigley, et al.
it seems that these hacks at UEA are afraid have invented for themselves a lie of forfeiting giving some highly sensitive economic information away, that would cause their department to collapse in prestige or status.
this is utter nonsense.
The greater the transparency, the greater the real status, provided that the scientific technique is valid
It just seems to me that the quickest way to shut up Steve & Anthony & other such critics would be to release the data. Of course, that assumes that the data actually SUPPORTS the claims they make.
It is VERY difficult to accept their claims as valid, and to accept that the data supports it, when thy continue to refuse – it throws a lot of doubt on their certainty about the data and their conclusions.
The people to be taken to task are not the scoundrels themselves for whom revenge is a dish best served cold, piece by piece, but their enablers and apologists which include entire scientific bodies who still support runaway greenhouse theory based on X factor water vapor feedback as being a law of nature merely based on hand waving arguments.
News Flash: Richard Feynman is dead.
It’s obvious to anybody though where he would stand on this topic, no?
These days he wouldn’t even get tenure.
Seems that since there has been no prosecutions for failing to follow the law concerning FOIs that the law has been followed. There is no proof the law has not been followed.
HA! This is like an accused in a bank robber refusing to say where he was at the time of the robbery because he doesn’t want to do time in the slammer.
sceptical says:
Seems that since there has been no prosecutions for failing to follow the law concerning FOIs that the law has been followed. There is no proof the law has not been followed.
Following that logic, the only crime Al Capone was ever guilty of was tax evasion (and possibly illegal possession of a weapon – although that case was dropped). After all, he was never arrested or prosecuted for anything else.
Need I say more?
The reason they won’t shove is because it is no longer science but a religion.
Here are the AGW hallmarks of a religion according to the BBC!
crosspatch says:
April 26, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“rigorous multivariate statistical tools?”
I believe that is an apt description of the entire “hockey team”.
——————————
Thanks, crosspatch, best laugh of the week.
Seriously, when a publicly funded university refuses to release data because it might affect their future funding, something is very wrong. Someone (I am at the other end of the world) should ask them to tease out that statement and explain exactly what it means.
Fred:
First you must READ the FOI’s definition of the URALS composite:
““URALS” (which includes the Yamal and Polar Urals long chronologies, plus other shorter ones). ”
I have tracked down that the Yamal series contributed to the reconstructions in Mann and Jones 2003, Jones and Mann 2004, Moberg et al 2005, D’Arrigo et al 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006 and Hegerl et al 2007, among others.
No, I don’t have the paper – I’m not about to spend money to prove you wrong – even though you are.
Per my research, Osborn and Briffa 2006 DID use the Yamal data which the FOI is requesting.