Steve McIntyre reports on Climate Audit:
Breaking news: Today probably marks the closing chapter of the longstanding FOI request for CRUTEM station data. The UK Information Commissioner (ICO) has rendered a decision (see here) on Jonathon Jones’ appeal of the UEA’s refusal to provide Prof Jones with the CRUTEM station data that they had previously provided to Georgia Tech. The decision that can only be characterized as a total thrashing of the University of East Anglia.
Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University (like me, an alumnus of Corpus Christi, Oxford), is a Bishop Hill and CA reader and was one of several CA readers who requested the CRUTEM version sent to Georgia Tech earlier that year. (Contrary to disinformation from Nature, relatively few readers requested CRUTEM data; most FOI requests at the time were for the supposed confidentiality agreements prohibiting data being sent to “non-academics” – agreements that the University was unable to produce.
Jones’ request for CRUTEM data, like mine, was refused by UEA. Like me, Jones appealed the refusal at UEA (the first stage). On Oct 23, 2009, UEA rejected his appeal. (My appeal was rejected about 3 weeks later on the very eve of Climategate.) While I didn’t pursue the appeal to the ICO, Prof Jones did appeal and the present decision is the result of this appeal. I was unaware that this appeal was pending and the decision came as a surprise to me. Since the story started at CA, Andrew Montford and Prof Jones decided that news of the decision should also be broken here. I anticipate that Bishop Hill will also cover the story.
I urge readers to read the thoughtful decision. My own comments will be restricted to some legal aspects of the decision that intrigued me.
Hat Tip to reader “a jones” for posting in Tips & Notes
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, the defense tactic of “throwing s*it-balls against the wall” failed. The stains linger, however.
Got the I C O,
Now we need R I C O.
To the moon, Alice.
===========
justthefactswuwt,
Heads up… In the 2nd sentence where the you have the words “(see here)”, there is no hyperlink.
Best regards and thanks for the news, wermet
REPLY: Fixed, thx – JTF
Three cheers for Professor Jonathon Jones of Oxford and for the ICO too in making this decision. Too bad it nearly 2 years, but the right decision was made.
I would love to see the data sets that Phil Jones used to construct his CRU 9x series from. Some of the stations have data going back beyond what NCDC has listed, or is willing to part with. And I believe that the data is not adjusted, which makes it a gold mine for research.
As Steve points out, this is where the non adjustment for UHI starts breaking down. Heh, who lost China?
======
So those completely altruistic, selfless scientists claiming we’re all going to face a hellish nightmare based on their research have finally been forced to share the data they used while on the public dime… Pulling teeth just doesn’t begin to describe it.
Get his name right. Jonathan not Jonathon.
Each pat o’ another’s back is hate rising, slacked arms nothing new but traitors be damned, you say?
CLIMATEGATE 101: “For your eyes only…Don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially? from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones to Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann
Bunch of lawyers ’round ‘ere, I note.
Prediction:
Many will use this data to show that AGW is either not occurring, or is not a problem. The response will be that you can manipulate the data to make it say anything, even false results.
My response would then be: “Quite so!”
But, but, but, I thought they lost all that data.
One more chip knocked off UEA’s block of hubris and obfuscation. Brilliant news, Mr McIntyre..
The spin doctors of climatology
Must now reveal the bias
In their tricky methodology.
“The greatest problem facing the world” …. meets a University who is “unable to supply the critical data underlying that assertion because we may loose the chance to commercialise this data … sometime, somewhere, somehow” … in short as far as they are concerned the “worlds greatest problem” can go to hell.
Now becomes: a fifth rate University trying to hide the fact that all it has to offer the world is a simple average with no checking of the data, no understanding of its meaning, no understanding at all of the many and multifarious error … in short nothing, which anyone with a laptop and an afternoon in the pub could not hack together.
And they think anyone should take them seriously?
This looks like a good (and fair) job by the commissioner – I’m glad that Professor Jones has been successful in his appeal.
For me para 72 in the document (relating to Environmental Information Regulations) just about sums up the problems with so much of Climate Science
“It is not sufficient that disclosure would simply have an effect, the effect must be “adverse”. It is also necessary to show that disclosure “would” have an adverse effect, not that it could or might have an adverse effect”
That would be a useful tenet / guide for most of the headline grabbing stories out there and replace disclosure with CO2 or rising sea levels or …..
Thank Heaven for that. On the other hand, the ICO is not the most ferocious of watchdogs – I’ll really believe it only when the data is actually released.
@Scottish Sceptic says:
June 28, 2011 at 12:10 am
East Anglia was always a fifth rate institution hardly deserving the title “university”. It was unequivocally Britain’s worst university until the polytechnics were upgraded to university status in the 1980s.
Given the amount of effort they have gone to in the past to avoid disclosing anything, I will be amazed if UEA don’t appeal.
What I really don’t understand is why they want to keep their data secret. If things are as bad as they say they are, then they should be not only making the data available, but they should be begging of anyone who will listen: “Here’s the data – we think it looks bad – can you do a sanity check on it”.
Moreover, to claim that they aren’t permitted to release the data doesn’t appear to hold water. On this page http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ they include a link to all the agreements they have for the data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/agreements.pdf.
I count five. One is a Spanish form completed by Mike Hulme addressed to the Spanish met officeSpain. Another two, from Norway and Bahrain, do restrict distribution of the data. One is a request for data from the UK met office in which Hike Hulme says he won’t share the data, and again, fair enough. And one appears to be a print of the standard terms from the Met office website. That last says it all, really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Wasn’t one of the excuses for not releasing data that country boundaries had changed, and so it wasn’t possible to contact the appropriate authorities to get permission? I’m not sure about Bahrain, but I’m fairly confident that Norway, Spain and the UK have been pretty stable, boundary wise, in the time period we’re talking about.
I don’t know if this is another brick knocked out of the wall or simply the prelude to a 35 day wait until a contempt of court action is initiated.
Either way, its popcorn time!
Does anyone think that UEA are meekly going to comply with this order? I would like to think so, but they have the right to appeal and it must be highly likely that they will take it based on everything that they have done up to now, even if only as a way of delaying the inevitable.
Sadly I doubt very much that this is the end of the story.
—I apologise if I seem very thick, but I just don’t understand all the letters. For instance, what do CRUTEM and all the others stand for? It would be most helpful if the actual titles could be written out in full in the first instance, followed by the letters in brackets and then the letters can be used on their own thereafter.
Thanks.
wow. that’s a commissioner who doesn’t mess around.
i think he’s left them no room for further argument or evasion.
that ruling was extremely well considered and made to show it.
The precedent this represents for British FOI actions suggests that Ken Briffa’s
tree ring data may be subject to a precisely written Freedom of Information
Act/Environmental Information Act Regulations request.
Any e-mails Ken might have floating around in servers the British public paid
for concerning site and sample selections would be fascinating.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2008764/Highly-venomous-jelly-fish-closer-British-waters-global-warming-causes-biggest-shift-marine-life-million-years.html
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they have pulled together research that supports their case and cast the runes
Wait……..we had PMOW appearing every few summers when I was a kid. Is this a case of New Lamps for Old?
Someone at UAE needs to take them in hand and tell them, “no, just release the data”. This must have cost them quite a packet. I would be wondering why these climateers didn’t want to release it. I understand the hand-waving to start with, but now they are just looking silly. An appeal would make them look sillier.
If they appeal, I shall be wondering if there isn’t after all a smoking gun it.