Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Whoever took the Climategate emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) are certainly playing the long game. Two whole years they waited before publishing the second group of 5,292 CRU emails, now known as Climategate 2.0. Impressive. I’m mentioned in 17 of the emails, because I made the first Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request to Phil Jones and the CRU to release his taxpayer-funded temperature data collection. Phil at the time was the head of the CRU. His data collection was and is the basis for one of the major global temperature records.
At the time they fobbed me off using a succession of excuses. They claimed the information was available on the web. But they were unable to say where. They put me off and put me off. My contemporaneous account of the CRU and the FOI lunacy is a posting on ClimateAudit entitled “Measuring Precipitation on Willis’ Boots“. (Not my title, that was Steve McIntyre’s). You should read it first for a concise background, it’s important for understanding the following story. I’ll wait here while you read it …
Eventually, after much time, long after I’d given up the chase as hopeless, the CRU folks admitted that the reason they didn’t release the data was that they didn’t have the data. Somewhere along the line, it had been lost.
Mr. David Palmer was the Freedom of Information Officer for the CRU at the time. In the newly released emails, he expresses his frustration with the whole procedure. I absolutely love his honesty at the time, but unfortunately, it’s a shame he didn’t say the same thing publicly. These latest emails fill in some very interesting holes in the story with new information that wasn’t revealed in the first set of Climategate emails.
From David Palmer to Phil Jones, regarding my FOI request, email #1184, April 2007 (emphasis mine):
Gents,
My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he wants the raw station data; we don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct? Our letter stated:
“We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but without sources. This would include locations, names and lengths of record, although the latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series.”
Can we put this on the web? Perhaps I am being really thick here but I’m not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr. Eschenbach – we’ve said we don’t have data sources, he says the external websites don’t have them, so who does? Are we back to the NMS’s? [National Meteorological Services -w.] I am happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are putting on the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach still insist that we actually possess the information in the form he requests, I can then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then we move on formally….
Cheers, Dave
Dave is right, there’s yer problem. “We don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?”. That’s staggering, it’s gotta be in the running for some kind of truth in advertising award. Shame he wasn’t that honest with me. Instead, he worked hard to obscure that fact.
Phil Jones isn’t having any of it, though. He replies to David Palmer’s email on 23 April 2007 (emphasis again mine)
Dave,
…
I do not want to make the raw data available, as it will involve more and more requests. We make the gridded data available and that should be enough.
I think it would be worthwhile having a meeting involving a few more people in the light of the Keenan letter and what has been said on the Climate Audit website from Friday.
This to my mind is bullying and virtual harrasment. This is not for any reasonable scientific point. It is quite simply harrasment. These people are self appointed.
Cheers
Phil
My conclusion after all this time is that Phil truly didn’t get it. He actually didn’t understand. He was not the owner of private data. He was the curator of public data. He didn’t understand that FOI requests are legal documents. Throughout the whole episode he treated them as some kind of optional request to grant or not as he saw fit. In this he was aided and abetted by David Palmer.
Upon reading this email, I was very curious to find out what had gotten Phil’s knickers in a twist regarding “what has been said on the Climate Audit website from Friday”. Upon looking up the ClimateAudit post from Friday, April 20, 2007, I laughed when I found out that what Phil was referring to as “bullying and virtual harassment” was the post I cited above and requested that you read. I’m sure you picked up on how I was “bullying and virtually harassing” Professor Jones.
So that was what Phil was complaining about—me pointing out the foolishness of their various excuses. And on that basis he said that would not make the raw data available, as though me laughing at his transparent dodges were a valid exemption to an FOI request.
I note that over at RealClimate they are desperately trying to spin this as two-year-old turkey. However, it’s not just my case that has new information. Regarding a host of other issues, the recent emails contain much previously unrevealed evidence of the perfidy, subversion, misdirection, and malfeasance practiced by the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators. Among many other things, they provide clear evidence of the destruction of incriminating emails. This was not just “boys will be boys”. This was the leading lights of the AGW supporting scientists, working together to deny access to publicly funded climate data, and twisting, bending and breaking the scientific norms, FOI regulations, and possibly the law in the process. And that’s just what they did in my case, that doesn’t even begin to touch their other misdeeds that they discuss in detail.
The discouraging part is that, to this day, not a person among them has admitted that they did anything incorrect in the slightest. Not one has acknowledged that they went a ways, not just a little ways, but a long ways over the line of ethics, morality, and honesty. No one has said they did a single thing wrong, no one has admitted they evaded an honest FOI request. Silence.
And silence, unfortunately, has also been the overwhelming response of the climate science community to their misdeeds. The miscreants say nothing, their supporters say nothing, they keep awarding each other honors and prizes, and they hope it will go away.
Ah, well. The saddest part is that the new revelations of the unthinking, off-hand venality of these main scientists of the AGW movement have lost their power to shock. That is a tragedy for climate science in particular and for science in general.
Finally, my particular thanks to Steve McIntyre for his part in all of this. Not that he advised me or told me to file the FOI in question, he didn’t do either. That was my own idea and choice. But his dogged persistence, his insistence on and demonstration of transparency of code and data, and his general Canadian generosity, honesty, and geniality have been an inspiration to me. His work is generally an example of the scientific method at its cleanest.
My best regards to all,
w.
PS—Interestingly, whoever released the emails also released a whole host of other CRU emails in a password protected archive. The purpose of this archive remains obscure, and the password has not been provided. At a minimum the publication of the archive ensures that the other emails will not be lost in a hard drive crash, or seized by the authorities. Whether it constitutes a warning or a message, and to whom it might be addressed, is unclear. Grab a beer and some popcorn, this story’s not over.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis Eschenbach says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm
… “Does anyone but me think that his answer and the question come from different planets? He’s asked about deleting emails, and he answers about whether we need to know who wrote the IPCC report.”
People need to know. If their is urgent need for action, we need the data, we need to know, we are free citizens in freely operating democracies and we need complete transparency. We need the truth, not someone’s version of it, in order to support urgent action as called for by the CAGW crowd. I find it either disingenuous, or dangerously naive to think otherwise.
Phil and company have demonstrated time and again they operate with half a brain and no moral compass resulting in poor judgement as pertains to the public impact of their work – resulting in FOI requests and finally Climategates 1.0 and 2.0. They brought this on themselves.
Their and their institutions failure to respond to FOI requests in accordance with law, let me repeat, in accordance with law, was a bad call and has provided massive ammunition for their opponents, whomever they may be, and forever tarnished their reputations and legacies. No matter how all this plays out in the near-term, they will go down in history as villains; if earth heats up catastrophically for bungling the message; and if not for being fooled by confirmation bias. “The Cause – good grief! Can you imagine Einstein referring to the Theory of Relativity as “The Cause”? I cringe at the thought.
I also don’t buy the argument that they were hapless, harassed, honest, academics being besieged with requests for data. Come on. Phil could have got back up from the institution and got enough funding to put a mini-red team together to cobble some sense into his data and handled the immense traffic in data requests (/sarc) from what; a half dozen “self-appointed” parties.
Julian Williams in Wales says:
November 23, 2011 at 11:57 am
I wonder if FOIA is playing a long game or just woke up in a bad mood. Two years is a very long time to wait, they could have kept the pot boiling with more interim releases. Maybe they felt threatened and wanted to protect their position (if that is the motive they succeeded, the warmist don’t want to bait FOIA)
Also how much work have they done selecting these emails. If I were planning a second attack for two years I would spend some of that time collating the emails. For instance pick out a selection to do with data manipulation, or focus on hide the decline, and put them out together as as single release, and then make another selection about corrupt pal review for another hit later.
[Thanks for your contribution, Dave, but … far too much cut and pasted stuff snipped. Please, folks, links were invented for a reason. Don’t just cut and paste a mile and a half of text into this thread. Provide a link. -w.]
Latimer Alder says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:47 am
Exceprt from a post I made at Judith’s place
‘We already know that Phil Jones – along with Mike Mann – believes that as a ‘Climatologist’ he has been granted some special immunity from adhering to normally accepted standards of professional behaviour and integrity. And in the case of FoI – the law of the land as well…..
____________________________-
As a chemist, I think referring to this bunch as ‘Climatologists’ vs Climate Scientists would be a good idea. What they do is NOT science by propaganda generation and it will eventually taint all the sciences with its stench.
I can not believe that the scientific societies are actually standing behind this bunch and lending them their good name because when the ‘Climatologists’ finally fall it will take down all the rest of the groups who “bought in” to turning science into a propaganda generating machine.
GregO says:
November 23, 2011 at 10:09 am
…..One can’t help but ask the question, “what were they thinking?” If the whole thing is an organized fraud/conspiracy wouldn’t any reasonable crook/conspirator at least do something a bit more careful like keep two sets of books – one for FOI and one for “Climate Science”. Or are they simply incompetents……
________________________________
The “team” are useful stooges and nothing more. They are expendable and their incompetence really doesn’t matter in the long run to those in charge. They were pick for their blind faith in “The Cause” and thier usefulness has about run its course.
The brains behind the CAGW mess goes all the way back to Maurice Strong/David Rockefeller and the UN/World Bank among others. (1972 First Earth Summit) The “team” were picked to come up with a “Scientific basis” for the “de-development of the USA.
You can not set out to smash a successful economy and political structure without a reason the masses will accept. Pollution, the environment, followed by CAGW was that reason. The result is the destruction of the US manufacturing base. In 1970 over 25% of the labor force worked in manufacturing, the last I looked it was less than 9% and dropping. Also what manufacturing that is left is foreign owned. Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, before WTO was ratified (1995), Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm
Sounds like a conspiracy theory until you look at the publications of General Pascal Lamy, World Trade Organization Director. Looking beneath the surface, the ratification of the World Trade Oranization ===> final collapse of US manufacturing ==> collapse of the economy ===> the dissatisfaction of the USA dollar as the reserve currency ===> Carbon Credits the new global Currency? [Harvard] http://irps.ucsd.edu/dgvictor/publications/Faculty_Victor_Article_2004_A%20New%20Currency_Harvard%20Intl.pdf
Acquired through a FOIA request, CIA Document, Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf
WTO Chief Says World Facing New Leadership Patterns http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/284/
Of What Use is Global Governance? http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
Global Governance, for Whom? A response to Pascal Lamy – Global Governance: Getting Us Where We All Want to Go and Getting Us There Together http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/content/global-governance-whom-response-pascal-lamy-global-governance-getting-us-where-we-all-want-g
The Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/world-economy-trade-and-finance/global-economy%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2s-shifting-centre-gravity
Global Governance and Systemic Risk in the 21st Century http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/global-governance/global-governance-and-systemic-risk-21st-century
Pascal Lamy: Need Truly Global Monetary System http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/256/
Willis Eschenbach says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“(…)“Why do people need to know who wrote what individual paragraph?” Jones said.
Latitude says:
November 23, 2011 at 12:31 pm
“He’s not that stupid…..no one is that stupid”
I cannot reconcile these two sentences.
Latitude says: November 23, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Willis Eschenbach says: November 23, 2011 at 11:34 am
.
================================================
He’s not that stupid…..no one is that stupid …he was stonewalling and lying
I’ve seen folk with early senile dementia “coping” by being really nice to everyone – everyone “in authority”, that is. Then there’s the devastating research of Stanley Milgram, showing how “pleasers” become the most inhuman tyrants of all, if they believe they are being instructed to do so by “authority”.
To me, this is where Jones fits. Inept scientist, gets his position because he succeeds so well in pleasing co-workers and those in authority over him, his real expertise is this lifelong coping strategy to cover his innate spinelessness and gullibility… he’s too spineless to see the corrupt nature of that authority.
I suggest the self-named ‘we’ who released the info of climategate 1.0 (Nov ’09) and of 2.0 (Nov ’11) did not time both the releases based on upcoming IPCC conferences.
For the 1.0 climategate release it was likely timed wrt to the climatic buildup to the Copenhagen IPCC conference. Since Copenhagen there have been IPCC meetings/conferences prior to the upcoming Durban with no releases and the imminent Durban conference looks to be impotent at best. So, Durban does not appear to be a significant reason for the major 2.0 climategate release.
For this current 2.0 climategate release the timing, to me anyway, appears more likely based on the intervention by Mann in the court case of ATI’s FOI request for Mann’s info while at UVa. The evidence of this reason for the timing of release 2.0 is suggested because many of the emails are focused on Mann and cover the period Mann was at UVa; as well as other periods and other ‘Team’ members.
As to whether ‘we’ is a single person or a number of people. Looking back at the professional cool execution of the releases and the patient strategy then I find it more likely ‘we’ indeed is a number of people.
John
PS – this was also posted on CA
In a nutshell – should be required reading for everyone and for those supporting or promoting AGW-themed policies accompanied by a request to explain why they support or promote in light of the crass scientific dishonesty on which the AGW campaign has been built.
Several months ago I tried to find again something on this aspect I’d read on WUWT, failed to. It was written possibly by Pilke or McIntyre and a description of how the questions asked were never directly answered, but subtly shifted sideways and an answer given to a completely different point, one not being made.
If you could ask around..? I should be grateful, I’d like to read it again it was thought provoking.
As is this:
What is he actually saying here?
John Whitman says:
November 23, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“As to whether ‘we’ is a single person or a number of people. Looking back at the professional cool execution of the releases and the patient strategy then I find it more likely ‘we’ indeed is a number of people.”
If the [unintentionally?] hilarious “Occupy” hippie nonsense in the ReadMe file is genuine and not a cover, e.g.:
“/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///
…“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels”
(yeah, right. Let me just get out my invisible checkbook here, and with this invisible pen, I’ll write a $37,000,000,000,000 invisible check, payable to Gaia. There you go. And don’t take any wooden Carbon Credits)
if that’s “FOIA’s” true sentiment, I suggest this could indeed have come from willie leaks (oops, typo. I meant wikileaks).
Willis:
I recently paid $70 for the 1925 to 2005 station data, day by day, high and lows..for Chaska MN. (Obviously I’m engaged in an “apples to apples” comparison using the Chaska to bounce off the DISMAL (since WWII) Mpls data, which comes from…the middle of two runways at the Mpls Int. Airport.) This was a 1.5 MB file. I did a quick calc, and figured the WHOLE USA data set would cost me $100,000.
I’m OUTRAGED and ANGRY. Do you have ANY suggestions how we PRY THIS INFORMATION OUT OF THE NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER for NOTHING!
I paid for this info. My PARENTS paid for this info. MY GRANDPARENTS PAID FOR THIS INFO.
I’ll be damned if I have to pay again.
You are very GOOD at this sort of thing. FOIA act or Class Action Lawsuit? What’s the best way to slice and dice these turkeys for thanksgiving. I’ll have them WITHOUT gravy please, they’ve been on a “gravy train” too long as it is.
Max
John-X,
You should re-parse what ‘we’ said in “/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///”.
The thrust is that spending that $37 trillion is stupid.
John
Perhaps the reason for the slow response from the Climate team is because they already know what information is in all of those encrypted files that no one gets to read…. YET. Anything they say will have to be tempered by what yet may be released at some time in the future.
Kev-in-UK says: “Just for fun, I remembered where I’d heard the University of East Anglia mentioned before:..”
I’ll bet all those idiots in the video know Excel.
Gail Combs says: “As a chemist, I think referring to this bunch as ‘Climatologists’ vs Climate Scientists would be a good idea.”
As a student of astronomy, I lean towards the term “Climatologers.”
Max Hugoson says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Max, go here, the data is free. You’ll have to navigate to the location you are interested in.
w.
re post by: Harold Ambler says: November 23, 2011 at 5:22 am
Gee, and here I thought they were all lavishly funded by Eeeevil Big Oil!!! /sarc
“John Whitman says:
November 23, 2011 at 4:56 pm
The evidence of this reason for the timing of release 2.0 is suggested because many of the emails are focused on Mann and cover the period Mann was at UVa; as well as other periods and other ‘Team’ members.”
Alternatively, could your arguments also be used to suggest the person wanted to help out Dr. Tim Ball against Mann?
Max Hugoson says:
November 23, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Willis:
“”I recently paid $70 for the 1925 to 2005 station data, day by day, high and lows..for Chaska MN. (Obviously I’m engaged in an “apples to apples” comparison using the Chaska to bounce off the DISMAL (since WWII) Mpls data, which comes from…the middle of two runways at the Mpls Int. Airport.) This was a 1.5 MB file. I did a quick calc, and figured the WHOLE USA data set would cost me $100,000.””
Willis says it is here free [Max, go here, the data is free. You’ll have to navigate to the location you are interested in.]
w.
Reply;___________________
if you are interested in the whole national sets of data, it can be had compressed onto DVDs is several formats, for about what you paid for one station, here is the link to the online store I bought the TD3200 Coop data set I use.
http://ols.nndc.noaa.gov/plolstore/plsql/olstore.prodlist?category=C&subcatc=01&groupin=CDV
I love this gem from “Harry”,
“I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”
———————————–
He just had no idea how “poor a state” Australia was to become under the governance of current ALP/Greens/Independents bro-ha. A government that has embraced the deceit, dishonesty, and censorship of the TEAM with two hands and both legs to foist a CARBON DIOXIDE TAX on the Nation.
Willis, how does #2581 fit into the story now? Note the date.
From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:15 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations
request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03)
Dave,
I have found all the input data for the paper from 1990. This includes the
locations of the sites and the annual temperature values. If I were to get
someone in CRU to put them on our web site, do you think that would
keep them quiet, or just spur them into more requests?
There is much more at this number.
Willis, try #3791 The last line is especially illuminating.
date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:49:18 -0000 (GMT)
from: “Tim Osborn”
subject: RE: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
to: “Jones Philip Prof”
Hi Phil!
re. your email to Dave Palmer [which he copied in his response to you and
cc’d to me, Keith & Michael McGarvie, and which has hence already been
multiply copied within the UEA system, and therefore will probably exist
for a number of months and possibly years, and could be released under FOI
if a request is made for it during that time!]… I assume that you didn’t
delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring
clean of various other emails that hadn’t been requested, as part of your
regular routine of deleting old emails. If that is what you meant, then
it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to
avoid it being misunderstood. 🙂
The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI,
EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via
email. It’s such a shame that the skeptics’ vexatious use of this
legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology
as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions
then we may need to avoid it.
I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular
routine of deleting old emails!
Cheers
Tim
Excellent! That’s the best yet!
Good one! Here’s another: Maybe he held back these documents hoping Mann would be emboldened to “overreach”–at which point a second release could pull the rug out from under him.
Willis you have access to many things I do not would you be able to show me the way to a graph or three that show the increase in co2 over the last 150 years also the amount of mankinds co2 output compared to natural I am having a “discussion” with a person about the latest emails and thease things come up and I am not sure where to find them.
PaulID:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
David Socrates says:
November 23, 2011 at 8:43 am
“The BEST obvious recourse therefore is to undertake the huge task of getting hold of all the raw temperature data (and metadata) and carrying out a complete reprocessing of it using an openly declared set of statistical processing rules and then publishing the whole thing on the web for all to see. Oh dear, I forgot. That’s already been recently tried and has failed entirely to resolve the matter.”
I think the BEST thing to do would be for someone to collect all the raw data, identify where it came from and how it was measured (metadata), etc, and release it to the world as the true uncorrected raw data. Then and only then should anyone embark on the arduous task of correcting and analyzing the data. I think it’s a tad presumptuous of Phil to believe that his method is the best and only method. This is what Berkley’s BEST should’ve done. Maybe once we have 12000 independent studies of the same raw data set, we can get consensus on the true global temperature over the past 100 years and its probable error.
That beats trusting Phil, NCDC, Berkley and NASA to do a proper job of it.