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.
There must be a huge amount of data. Who is going to analyse it and how ? Is there full access to CRU methods ?
“requested the CRUTEM version sent to Georgia Tech earlier that year.”
And what year was “that?”
And the next sentence has no closing parenthesis.
UEA will fight on. They have to as their life depends upon it. The life of AGW also depends upon it. The livelihoods of thousands of climate “scientists” depend upon it. The credibility of all too many leading politicians depend upon it. The policies of all too many governments depend upon it. Delay is the only defense left to them.
Well done Dr (J) Jones. Your persistence is inspiring.
I am sure that the decision of the UK Information Commissioner (ICO) will be scrutinized by both:
1) Virginia AG Cuccinelli and his team of investigators pursuing documents related to M. Mann while he was at UVA
2) The American Tradition Institute’s team that will, in the coming few months, view (in camera) the UVA documents of M. Mann that UVA says are exempted from FOI. It appears to me that the UK ICO decision supplied some cogent arguments that will be useful to spring into public light the UVA MM related emails that the UVA has so far claimed are exempted from FOI disclosure.
John
Although seemingly good news on the surface, this is the UK after all. It’ll just be brushed aside, nothing to see. Like the scary CO2 monster bedtime ads in the UK, banned for a little while, then allowed to be aired again.
Dr burns, you can read all about the gruesome “methods” of the CRU here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread521999/pg1
Prepare for a shock. I read this file in 2009 and was instantaneously converted to a sceptic.
The ICO decision is a very well written document.
Thank you ICO.
John
Sonya Porter says:
June 28, 2011 at 2:40 am
“what do CRUTEM and all the others (acronyms) stand for?”
http://climateaudit101.wikispot.org/Glossary_of_Acronyms
Don’t feel bad, the alphabet soup gets me sometimes too. 🙂
@ur momisugly bananabender (@ur momisuglyScottish Sceptic)
Fifth? You are too kind, sir.
Sonya Porter says:
“what do CRUTEM and all the others stand for? ”
CRUTEM is not really an acronym, it’s the name of the dataset. CRU is the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. TEM is short for Temperature Series.
Shona says:
June 28, 2011 at 4:02 am
If they appeal, I shall be wondering if there isn’t after all a smoking gun it.
Even if, as I think likely, this particular dataset is squeaky clean, not to appeal (or a failed appeal) sets a precendent which would mean that other FOI requests previously refused on these grounds are also open to challenge, and would be harder to refuse. On the other hand, a successful appeal would set the opposite precedent.
It seems to me they have no choice but to appeal.
Sonya Porter says:
June 28, 2011 at 2:40 am
“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”
Sonya – You are not ‘thick’..You are correct. It is standard procedure in technical writing to spell out in full all titles or phrases when first used and, if their acronym is to be used in the remaining text, to immediately follow with the foreshortened acronym within brackets or parenthesis. Examples:
University of East Anglia – United Kingdom (UEA – UK)
UEA Climate Research Unit (UEA – CRU)
CRU TEMperature Data Base (CRUTEM)
see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
‘Shop blindness’ is a term applicable to many writers. They are so familiar with their familiar topics that they forget to explain the jargon and acronyms ‘up front’ for the understanding of others. I have to confess, I’m guilty of this myself, on occasion! Hope this helps…..
I just finished reading the ICO decision. I saved it because it is going to be referenced in all future discussion of pending FOIA (& FOI) cases either in the UK or the USA (even though obviously the legal systems are not the same).
This is clear analysis of why there are errors in the basis of exemptions thought up by too many scientific universities, institutes, academies, societies and government bodies.
This is a benchmark document whether it is appealed by UEA or not.
John
I’m just going to leave another link to the HARRY_READ_ME.txt. For the uninitiated, the file is a chronology of the frustrations the poor programmer went through when collating the temperature dataset. It is loaded with nuggets that makes me believe the finished product, as some people call it, is at best very inaccurate and at worst a bespoke con on an unimaginable scale.
Here’s the link: http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
It’s a long file, but I am amazed the file is not being discussed more. In my opinion it may be more important than the mails from the same Climate-gate leaks.
Read it, and ignore the stuff you don’t understand, you will still be stunned. If you are a programmer you will be disgusted.
Just one more thing: Search for ‘GHH’ (without the apostrophes) to find the juicy parts in the Harry file. This catches most ways of spelling variants of “ARRGGHHH”
Have fun.
>>Niels says:
>>Dr burns, you can read all about the gruesome “methods” of the CRU here: >>http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread521999/pg1
Thanks Neils. I’d seen bits of the Harry_Read_Me but this is a very interesting article. The file certainly deserves some detailed analysis, especially comments such as “it’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards”
Been there.
CRU Climate Research Unit +TEM – a file or set of files at CRU
See Resources [top of page]: http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/glossary/
Actually his link put by Niels above
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread521999/pg1
\probably the most important link on the whole AGW scam basically NONE of the adjusted global temps from CRUD, NOAAC (pun intended) etc can be trusted. You may note that Berkeley temp project has suddenly disappeared probably because if they actually have the raw unadjusted it doesn’t show anything. BTW UHA data is not the same as they keep on saying. Its much cooler see for yourselves.
I note that Jonathan Jones believes that when he finally receives the CRUTEM data under the FOI, he won’t be able to share it further due to stipulations he believes will be placed on the material.
6) Even if I do receive the Webster data it is highly likely that UEA will claim the right to restrict further distribution of my copy of the data. In other words if you want a copy you will probably not be able to get one from me, and will instead have to make your own FOI request to UEA. It would be simplest to cite this decision notice in any such request.
7) That said, I would urge people not to request this or other data from UEA unless you genuinely want it for some useful purpose. While I understand the reasoning behind the decision to make multiple requests for confidentiality agreements from UEA, that action, in my opinion, helped UEA’s public relations presentations (although not, it seems, their case with the ICO). There are plenty of individuals reading this capable of undertaking effective analyses of this and other data, and on the whole such analyses should be left by the rest of us to them.
Should Dr. Jones’ projections prove correct, the results, in my opinion, still fall far short of the openness and transparency that should be fundamental to science. Surely the data and methods used to select and adjust the data should be made available for all who wish to scrutinize. Even so, great work, Dr. (J.) Jones!
The endless, specious claims of exemption on the part of UEA remind me of the chap who was being sued for demolishing a rental camera. His lawyer came up with 3 reasons why the suit should be thrown out of court:
1. My client has never rented a camera from the plaintiff.
2. The camera was already broken when my client received it.
3. My client returned the camera in perfect condition.
Niels says: “Just one more thing: Search for ‘GHH’ (without the apostrophes) to find the juicy parts in the Harry file. This catches most ways of spelling variants of “ARRGGHHH” Have fun.”
OH, yeah, right! HARRY_READ_ME file is hideously painful to read It’s hideous. I cringe every time I read one of the AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH sections. If there was ever a field where the maxim, “A little learning is a dangerous thing,” applies, it’s computer programming. I envision a place in Hell where the damned must fix programs written by others who absolutely didn’t know what they were doing and (worse) refused to provide the necessary remarks and documentation to indicate what they thought they were doing. The gang of monkeys at UEA who created the monster Harry is trying to slay will be found at the deepest levels of Hell if Harry has anything to say about it. Good thing he had a sense of humor:
“6. Temporarily abandoned 5., getting closer but there’s always another problem to be evaded.”
I have a stupid question. My understanding is that Phil Jones destroyed–I mean accidentally misplaced–150 years of raw climate data. But according to the article, at least a subset of that data was sent to some politically correct folks at Georgia Tech. So ignoring the obvious chain-of-custody issue, Phil Jones’ ‘senior moment’ did not result in a TOTAL loss for the raw data with which he was entrusted. Did I got that right?
Also danke Don Keillor.
============
er, ER. That’s Don Keiller, who has left fine comments at Steve’s and at lucia’s. He pursued the other complaint with the ICO and was just as successful as J. Jones.
============
Lucia has noticed that there is no central email repository at UEA.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/related-ico-ruling-email-repository-at-uea/