It started out simple enough, a standard “righteous” FOIA request to UEA/CRU’s David Palmer, the FOI officer, from a researcher in Britain no less. This is email 0584.txt Dr. Phil Jones take on it didn’t seem to impress FOI agent Palmer at all.
>>X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender
>>to <REDACTED> using -f
>>Subject: Freedom of Information
>>Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:33:56 +0100
>>X-MS-Has-Attach:
>>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information
>>Thread-Index: Acoc/QT7+Yv13Ew0Q5SXODkiAy56LA==
>>Priority: Urgent
>>From: “Keiller, Donald” <REDACTED>
>>To: <REDACTED>, <REDACTED>
>>Cc: <REDACTED>
Dear Mrs Palmer,
I have been reading with increasing disbelief the litany of excuses offered by CRU FOI Officers to Steve McIntyre at “Climate Audit” (http://www.climateaudit.org/) to refuse release of original temperature data held at CRU.
The refusal of FOI requests on the basis of confidentiality agreements which were either “verbal”, or “lost” is clearly illegal. If you cannot substantiate these agreements, then they are null and void.
Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry.
Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay
and must be withdrawn.
Accordingly I make the following FOI request, confirming that
I am a academic who has published in the area of climate change in the past and that I
currently work in an academic institution.
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) “General right of access to information held by public authorities”
In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to such a request which-
(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for
correspondence, and
(c) describes the information requested.
For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request-
(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.
I hereby request:
1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set that has been sent from CRU to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009
2. A copy of any instructions or stipulations accompanying the transmission of data to Peter Webster and/or any other person at Georgia Tech between January 1, 2007 and June 25, 2009 limiting its further dissemination or disclosure.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. D.R. Keiller.
Department of Life Sciences,
Anglia Ruskin University,
East Road,
Cambridge,
CB1 1PT
Here’s Dr. Jones response to Dave Palmer
>—–Original Message—–
>From: Phil Jones [REDACTEDREDACTED]
>Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 5:00 PM
>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
>Subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information
>
>
> Dave,
> From the language in this request, I’d regard it as vexatious.
> Cheers
> Phil
>
And Dave Palmer’s response to Dr. Jones
cc: “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” <REDACTED>
date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:58:28 +0100
from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” <REDACTED>
subject: RE: Freedom of Information [FOI-09-129]
to: “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)” <REDACTED>
Phil,
Whilst it’s getting close, I would not regard the language as sufficiently abusive or argumentative as to render this request as vexatious. In fact, I logged it and acknowledged it prior to my departure on hols but didn’t get around to circulating the request it seems… (I would, however, appreciate my proper gender being recognised! Lol)
As it is very much in line with other such requests, I presumed our response would be very much the same…
Cheers, Dave
It seems as if Palmer is duty bound by all that “vexatious” extra work that these requests supposedly caused CRU scientists, but it seems all Dr. Phil Jones has to do is dismiss each with a wave of the hand.
It seems Dr. Jones finally figured out “the mole” was their own open FTP server with inconvenient bytes lying around. Apparently, that’s vexatious too.
From: Phil Jones [[1] REDACTEDREDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:06 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Subject: Fwd: RE: Station data
Dave,
REDACTEDSee this link below. This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don’t rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious?
Cheers
Phil
[2]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments
This suggests to me that as there is no way that Dan would be aware its not him. Could it be that Mr. M sniffed the FTP site and ahs led everyone a merry dance. Can you log when that file was accessed? One for Mike and IT support at your end?
–
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED
University of East Anglia
NorwichREDACTED Email REDACTED
NR4 7TJ
UK
For the record, from I still don’t have a photograph of “the mole” as alluded to in CA comments by “vexatious” commenter “The Ford Prefect”. I do however have a screencap of that event and the file of interest (red arrow). Of course that’s not the file(s) Dr. Keiller and others have been seeking.
BTW there are many emails with “vexatious” in them
1. 0584
…cc: “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:58:28 +0100 from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” subject: RE: Freedom of Information [FOI-09-129] to: “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)” Phil, Whilst it’s getting…
2. 1131
…This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don’t rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious? Cheers Phil [2]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments This suggests to me…
3. 1184
…However, not having the information, or it being available elsewhere, or some 20-odd other exemptions are valid and I’m happy to see what of these may apply to the raw data… As to the request itself…
4. 1473
…and I think we might have a case under EIR ‘manifestly unreasonable’ grounds as that definition is wider than that for ‘vexatious’ requests under FOIA). Cheers, Dave…
5. 1577
…McIntyre that agreements prevented us from disclosing information – I doubt that they will see the nuances that only some of the information was covered by such agreements & we cannot release the lot…
6. 1599
…I said the bit about records not being kept should be removed. Our FOI person has ruled that if we get an FOI request from Harmon we can treat it as vexatious! I’m surprised that your press office have…
7. 2200
…Dave Palmer (Chris – he is the central FOIA contact) has mentioned that we can refuse to deal with a request if we perceive it to be vexatious. The tone and content of the message to Dr Wang is clearly…
8. 2289
…date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:34:21 +0100 from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: “Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)” , “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” , “Osborn Timothy…
9. 2475
…date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:28:22 +0100 from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: “Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)” , “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” , “Osborn Timothy…
10. 2655
…there is no ‘appropriate limit’) BUT there are more advantages to treating it under EIR. For example, we can extend response time to 40 working days, and, the only ‘vexatious’ test is manifest unreasonableness…
11. 3108
…cc: “Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)” , “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)” date: Fri, 9 May 2008 09:10:05 +0100 from: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act 1998 / Environmental Information to…
12. 3791
…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…
13. 4083
…This encouragement of others to join his campaign/war might eventually help us, if it is enough to count as vexatious. Tim — Dr. Tim Osborn RCUK Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental…
14. 4089
…date: Mon Aug 24 17:00:16 2009 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Freedom of Information to: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” Dave, From the language in this request, I’d regard it as vexatious. Cheers Phil X-Authentication-Warning…
15. 4131
…> However, not having the information, or it being available elsewhere, or > some 20-odd other exemptions are valid and I’m happy to see what of > these may apply to the raw data… > As to the request…
16. 4522
…I said the bit about records not being kept should be removed. Our FOI person has ruled that if we get an FOI request from Harmon we can treat it as vexatious! I’m surprised that your press office have…
17. 4878
…This message sent by someone at the Hadley Centre. I guess we don’t rise to the bait. Can we say taunting is vexatious? Cheers Phil [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6644#comments This suggests to me…
18. 5065
…It might be useful to have the other emails as well if, for example, we wish to consider a claim for a vexatious request under s.14…. Cheers, Dave >—–Original Message—– >From: Phil Jones 8…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I believe one of these ill-behaved playpen mates said something about the lack of warming also being vexatious a while back. Or something to that affect.
John O’Sullivan when his suite101 was closed down – http://climaterealists.com/?id=8588
John O’Sullivan: Popular Skeptic Writer Fired for Exposing Carbon Climate Fraud
Wednesday, November 2nd 2011, 3:13 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) Friends,
“I write to announce my employment with my publishers, Suite101 was terminated today without prior notice or explanation and all my articles published over a two-year period with them are now removed from the Internet. I believe this is in retaliation for my latest article ‘New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory’ revealing the shocking fact that the Japanese ‘IBUKI’ satellite measuring surface carbon dioxide emissions shows that Third World regions are emitting considerably more CO2 than western, industrial nations. [1.]”
Now on: http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41060.html
Temp says
Not a good start for the doomday cultists “choosing of the virgins to sacrifice to appease the gods” ritual.
————–
So temp, after looking at the primary source, and all 4 maps representing all of the seasons, do you still believe every thing John O’sullivan says.
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2011/10/20111028_ibuki_e.html
Its an explicit behavioral fact that defending a position with scorn, browbeating, derision, or evasion means that the subject matter being defended is [tendentious ] and devoid of truth.
If there were truth to it, then there would be no need for these behavioral problems exhibited, particularly by Mann and Jones. Scientists who have any assurance that they are onto a verifiable hypothesis just do not exhibit psychopathic and defensive behaviour.
I think I’d be pretty vexed if my FOIA requests kept on being refused for no good reason.
I think Jones needs to learn two new words “Conspiracy” and “Solicitation”. It may well be that the FOI legislation has a time limit of six months from when an offence is commited however I believe there is no time limit for criminal conspiracy?
“Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be committed by one person alone.”
“Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry.
Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay
and must be withdrawn.”
Most people who believe in the integrity of science would fully agree with these sentiments. But people who are involved in fraud and who actively support the corruption of science would doubtless find this to be extremely vexatious….
Chris
Jones needs to learn a new word “conspiracy”
It may well be that FOIA has a satute of limitation of six months however criminal conspiracy has no such limit?
Hah, ““losing confidence in this travelling circus” must lead to a new Josh cartoon i hope 🙂
@crosspatch “I wonder how long before someone has a contract to let and says “We don’t want UEA anywhere near this, we want someone with an objective view”.
You’ve got it. That’s the key, the only key, and nothing but the key. The scam keeps running at the academic level because all the grantors are interested in bad science. Governments, foundations, investment banks, insurance companies: all stand to gain power and money from keeping the game running. Thus they only give money to bad scientists.
If a MAJOR grantor ever makes the offer you hope for, good science will start to take over.
I don’t see it happening, though. There’s no way for anyone to get money or power from good science. It’s much more likely that the grantors will stop supporting all research because they’re broke and bankrupt.
I think we may need to be careful here. Dr Jones has behaved abominably by what seems, to all of us, fair standards of behaviour and of science.
However, by his own standards, and by the standards of many around him, he has worked tirelessly, to the best of his ability, in the service of the planet – and we are stopping him from doing the work needed so he is frantic. He lost weight, could not sleep, etc.
He has suffered. He has had death threats. OK, I know some of us have had them too, but he probably doesn’t know that and we probably can’t get this message through to him. So we need to put the message out, that we not only wish him no personal harm (despite the harm he’s effectively done to others, Science, and the planet) and we certainly do not condone the use of death threats.
So I say, take it very easy with anything that could be seen as taunting.
What will be more “vexatious” for these people is when the major European economies start collapsing from debt – then they’ll have to choose between food and climate science…that will be an easy choice, however…
@AussieAlf – The English language is indeed vexatious. 😉 As I learn conversational spanish, I am struck by the fact that we have a hundred ways to say something, that many other languages have but one. It makes our spelling bees more interesting as well.
Sorry for the double posts both did not show up after I posted.
Would that include emailing someone and saying they wish to beat someone up? Just checking on the goose gander thing.
davidmhoffer says:
November 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm
“Frankly, as a Canadian,”
Thanks. That narrowed things down considerably. Do you happen to know anyone with the following experience? 😉
[snip]
Robw says:
November 28, 2011 at 8:55 pm
“What really bothers me is the damage to science these people have done.”
Yes, that is a tragedy. Most US high schoolers of the last decade know that their science teachers and others lied to them or, worse, uncritically passed on the lies of others.
“I hereby request:
1. A copy of any digital version of the CRUTEM station data set…”
That would take, at most, a few mouse clicks. How can that possibly be called “vexatious”??
Considering the extensive use of the word, almost makes me wonder if Mr. Jones did some work for the Hawaiian Department of Health and the Hawaiian State Legislature.
(I know, off-topic…)
=8-)
Following:
“Similarly the refusal to provide data to allow fellow scientists access to original data to reproduce published findings strikes at the very heart of scientific enquiry.
Papers produced without such supporting data become hearsay
and must be withdrawn.”
In the name of science, should all papers relying on the ‘lost’ raw data be withdrawn?
Lucy, I applaud your sentiment, but Phil Jones, Michael Mann and company have helped perpetrate a fraud on mankind. A fraud that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and causing suffering, hardship, and most probably death! In my opinion, Phil Jones has not yet been given what he deserves for his part in this scam.
Another word that Phil might like is “comeuppance”.
@Pamela Gray
November 29, 2011 at 6:20 am
“Would that include emailing someone and saying they wish to beat someone up? Just checking on the goose gander thing”
———————————————————————–
Santer: “Pamela, you and me in the alley”
;o)
Why is CG2.0 like an antimatroid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatroid
One is convex, the other vexes a con.
There is an unjustifiable proprietary attitude displayed by the “team” towards climate science and the data. If it was a one man hysteria it would be comprehensible, but when a whole “community” displays the same trait, then obviously something else is afoot. This manic resistance to any request for data release goes beyond the reasonable. As for funding or status being sufficient motive for so many educated people to act this way, sorry, but I am not buying it. There must be an alternative explanation that makes more sense.