Nothing is so burdensome as a secret. French proverb
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Attempts to get critical information from agents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meet with little success. Why? They claim immediate response to their work is mandatory for planetary survival and time is running out. Here is what Slate reported on March 30 2014.
In a new U.N. report released on Monday morning (Japan time) scientists come to a stark conclusion: Unless the world changes course immediately and dramatically, the fundamental systems that support human civilization are at risk.
If true, surely the world has the right to know every bit of information used for this conclusion, but that hasn’t happened. There’s a contradiction between orchestrated publicity raising the threat, but silence, obfuscation, and outright denial regarding questions about important data, process, and methodology. Suspicions are driven by natural curiosity and desire for complete openness in science, but also by their behavior to date.
What have they got to hide? A great deal, as the leaked Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails attest. CRU countered challenges to their views by setting up the PR web site RealClimate and controlling information such as William Connolley’s editing of Wikipedia entries. Publicly they played the victim card claiming they were ordinary scientists trying to do their work but overwhelmed, possibly deliberately, by Freedom of Information requests. The requests occurred because they refused to provide answers and information. A siege mentality was apparent from the start. The Wegman Report investigation and analysis of the hockey stick fiasco provides an example in the critical paleoclimate group.
Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
The latest effort to get information released was thwarted by a court ruling regarding Michael Mann’s material. It said Mann’s work was protected from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests due to the “proprietary nature” of the information. How this impinges on the Amicus Brief, filed by a consortium of media in Virginia to obtain the same information, remains to be seen. The real issue is the data he is withholding, but that is not the Amicus’ concern. The opening paragraph of the Argument explains,
Exemptions to VFOIA (Virginia Freedom of Information Act) must be narrowly interpreted to comply with the legislative intent behind the law and to ensure the public and the news media sufficient access to the government to promote an understanding of its operations. Public universities are necessarily included in VFOIA and the media has a strong interest in being able to monitor University spending operations. While truly proprietary information in the possession of a public university should not be subject to request under VFOIA and in fact is properly exempted, email among professors is not entitled to a blanket treatment as proprietary. Instead, such communications are an essential part of the functioning of the University and must be subject to public scrutiny. Because such communications have been held not to implicate academic freedom, and because the type of email at issue here does not include unpublished information in which the professors or the University have a competitive interest, it must be subject to VFOIA. The lower court’s broad definition of “proprietary nature” cannot stand if VFOIA is to retain any meaning.
Openness and access for the media are important but abrogation of that responsibility by the mainstream media (MSM) allowed and encouraged CRU and IPCC behavior.
An appeal is necessary because of the nature of the material; taxpayers funded its production; and it is the basis of globally changing policy. State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli used the “Fraud against Taxpayers Act” against the University of Virginia when seeking Michael Mann’s work. When an author receives compensation does the ownership of the article belong to the payee, unless otherwise agreed? Did any of the IPCC participants contract retained ownership of their work? Participation in production of a public document with global policy implications implies you will provide full details in its derivation.
Leaked CRU emails indicate important players, like Phil Jones, CRU Director, anticipated the questions. He advised people how to hide and avoid FOI requests. Here is an email he sent on 2 February 2005.
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. 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. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!
On 10 December 2008 he wrote to Ben Santer;
Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA (Climate Audit), but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan (Solomon) aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey (bureaucrat in English TV comedy series) here!
And then a devastating postscript in a 21 February 2005 email to Michael Mann, cc’d to Bradley and Hughes.
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
On 21 January 2005 Phil Jones responded to concerns about FOIA from Tom Wigley, former Director of the CRU, grandfather overseer of the IPCC central characters.
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
IPR is Intellectual Property Rights and similar to the Proprietary Rights (PR) Michael Mann used to prevent release of his material. Jones suggests it is the final fall back position and so far it seems to work for Mann.
The Virginia media group Amicus Brief may redress problems created by Mann’s use of PR. Mann knew that as a “public figure” he was subject to a different level of what was defamatory. Shouldn’t that also apply to his PR? He tried to downplay the challenge claiming he was a ”reluctant public figure”. This reluctance didn’t prevent him promoting public adulation and recognition by bragging about and falsely claiming he was a Nobel Prize winner. Actually, the Nobel Institute gave it to the IPCC for their contribution to world peace. This categorically implies the IPCC work had global implications and therefore much greater consequence.
Mann consistently advances the importance of his work and the threat it confronts. He makes the link in such works as, “Do Global Warming and Climate Change Represent A Serious Threat To Our Welfare and Environment? He pushes the same message in many television appearances. These are hardly the activities of a “reluctant” person.
In my opinion this changes the standard of disclosure for his data and work. What is the basis for such an alarmist message that demands world-changing action with economic and social upheaval? Taxpayers who funded and are impacted have a right to know.
Earlier I said the PR was the final fall back position, but that only applies to legal actions. Phil Jones used a few unscrupulous tactics successfully. He convinced the University of East Anglia (UEA) that they should not have to reply to request from Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. He did it by denigrating and demeaning them with phrases like “types of people” in his 3 December 2008 email to Wigley,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.
Jones anticipated FOI request for emails by advising erasure. On 2 February 2005 he wrote,
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.
Did this attitude cause him to use the second defensive technique of losing the data? On 29 May 2008 he advised Mann and others to erase emails.
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith (Briffa) re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Apparently, Mann’s material or data is not erased or lost yet. Presumably he believes the PR ruling provides all the protection he needs.
Data Mann withholds was used to create the “hockey stick” handle and data Phil Jones lost created the blade, an event he said was “not acceptable”. The graph dominated the 2001 IPCC Report as Ross McKitrick detailed. The Report was pivotal in convincing the world that human produced CO2 was causing global warming. The hockey stick graph became the poster child.
Justice demands that Mann’s claim of Proprietary Rights be offset by the way in which the data and work was funded, produced and used. Funding was public at all levels, the IPCC is a UN agency globally funded, their work received maximum public approval with a Nobel Prize, their work was consciously directed and promoted to influence public policy through the Summary for Policymakers that profoundly altered national and international policies for energy and economies. If they believe the work done is so valuable, why do they persist in keeping it from the public? It is another example of the gap between justice and the law, especially as it relates to climate and the environment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi KNR.
Your B. Was it a serendipitous Mistake.
Keep your proof secret,refuse to share it and employ has may some and
mirrors has you can.
Like cracked mirrors of their souls.
Mark Luhman: “What we need it Judges with and English Major background not a law background.”
The problem with judges is not that they are selected from among lawyers–many of whom actually were English majors, by the way–but that the lawyers from among whom they are selected are people and that they were selected by people, and people have their limitations.
It’s not that judges are selected from among lawyers, it’s the lawyers that were selected. If you voted for George W. Bush, you tended to select good lawyers, although there were exceptions. If you voted for Obama, well, the less said he better.
bushbunny says:
May 5, 2014 at 1:23 am
The Nazi Party were National Socialists and Fascist at the same time. Totalitarian is a unifying precise description of both extremes
“If they believe the work done is so valuable, why do they persist in keeping it from the public”
So people don’t find anything wrong with it? The pigs on animal farm knew how to do this, if you keep information from everyone else, you can make it say whatever you like.
The shenanigans of team members to keep data secret, shows they do have something to hide. Their work is not reproducible without it. So there is no way to validate their claims. We are supposed to believe, on faith alone, they are not incompetent.
it is not science they are hiding. But the “mysteries” of their religion.
Gol-durn it, I come here for for amateurish, disingenuous attempts to disprove global warming by misinterpreting and cherry-picking, not for bizarre conspiracy theories. I want my money back!
One of the far reaching results of this episode of data denial is that the EPA has promulgated their “carbon policy” on unsubstantiated science and then dodged the required in house confirmation of it with the excuse “We don’t have time or money to repeat these tests that have already passed peer review” when if fact no one could reproduce the results without the same data and access to the process used.
What bothers me about “proprietary data” is that the owner of the data may claim proprietary rights to it, but who is the owner? The citzens of Virginia pay the expenses of the university AND it’s professors, thus the “owner” of the data is not the university or Mann, but the people of Virginia. If the University and Mann wish to claim proprietary rights, then they should be paying back to the citizens of Virginia all funds that they used to acquire the data. They are not a privately funded organization, thus they have no more “rights” to the data they create than does any other government worker working for a government. The federal government shrouds data under “national security,” but I can’t see how the University OR Mann can shroud the data under such a hideaway heading. The data belongs to the citizens of Virginia, as such, and it can’t be proprietary unless the citizens of Virginia claim it to be so. SO, how can a “court of law” claim otherwise? Only if someone bought it off.
Of course it’s National Security. The National bodies espousing CAGW would have their security in tatters if the data and codes and their workings were exposed to knowledgeable members of the public.
Every environmental alarm I hear prompts me to ask the question “Where is the Fire?”
The answer is usually found to be that what seems to be a cloud of smoke somewhere is more often than not a cloud of dust, raised by a crew of workers dragging tree limbs to cover their tracks.
Until someone successfully files a criminal or civil RICO suit (preferably after the 2014 midterms), These people are going to get away with feeding at the public trough for millions and presenting their purported “findings”. Some claims will get you over the “hump” and some won’t. RICO probably trumps because it is a claim based on a criminal or “quasi” criminal activity.
Palindrom (6:17 am) misses the point entirely because he ignores the fact that this site would not be necessary or likely even exist without what he calls a “conspiracy theory”. The sad part is a conspiracy is a secret plan and this was not done secretly as I explained in the following article titled “Daylight Robbery”.
http://drtimball.com/2012/climate-change-of-the-ipcc-is-daylight-robberyclimate-change-of-the-ipcc-is-daylight-robbery/
But then, unless Palindrom contributed to WUWT financially, he wants money back he never paid.
@Tom O, the ownership of the materials is set down in a contract that exists between the university and anyone who works there. This is standard practice, only overwritten by law or common law, should the agreement contravene it.
@Dudley Horscroft
>Normal law is that if you are contracted to do work for someone, whatever you find, or invent, or design, or write, on that subject is the property of the person you contracted for, and is the intellectual property of that person.
That is how it used to be. A short number of years ago the law in the USA was changed to strengthen the rights of people who worked for a company and whose IP rights had been signed away by contract. The Courts felt this was unfair. Inspired by this change a lot of countries changed their default copyright terms, for example. Your photos belong to you exclusively without lifting a finger. A person who signs away their ownership rights in the US actually retains some portion as the courts have ruled such an agreement unfair.
There is however an over-riding law in the US that in general anything paid for by ‘public money’ has to be made available free to the public unless blah blah blah for security. That is a condition, indirectly, for all publicly funded research and I don’t see an easy way out of it for something as innocuous as climate data and processing methods. I can’t see the university surviving their position much longer.
My hope is that Mann, once the info comes out, will repent and expose the rest of the sorry tale.
Bill Moyers said “There are honest journalists like there are honest politicians – they stay bought.”
Right now there are too many of both!
Is anyone surprised at the character assassination going on in the Amazon comments regarding Tim’s new book? Dim bulbs!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740/ref=cm_rdp_product
Call them for what they are – liars. Until they can prove otherwise of course, even if this requires recourse through the courts…… hmmmm, catch 22 eh?
I remain unconvinced of any overarching conspiracy. The combination a “Chicken Little” lack of common sense, excess confidence in their personal abilities, and the entertainment value of the apocalyptic vision to the media are adequate for almost everything. That plus a dose of self-interest in maintaining funding flows covers nearly all the core “conspiracy.” Along the way, like a sticky hairball rolling along a rather filthy alley, the core accumulates politicians, grifters and cons, “activists” and the occasional idealist looking to score additional political points and money, influence opinion, and even save the world.
=====================================================
I’m just a layman here but it seems to me that “Proprietary Rights” would only apply to those that have something to sell…….
The world will end soon unless you send me tons of money; however due to the of Proprietary Rights of my work, you can’t verify this, just trust me and send me the money !!!!
Please send it to:
Rob U. Blind
P.O. Box 7734
Ripoff Bend, VA 22301
That looks like McAwfuls campaign headquarters address.
Because it’s a fraud?
Let me stop beating about the bush. The leaked CRU emails are crystal clear, we were dealing with biased climastrologists who were worried about their continued funding and status. As for the rest of the fraudsters it was about using the Team to further their dishonorable goals to be Masters of the Universe. Meanwhile Maurice Strong (former UN guy) is in China after someone mistakenly gave him a $1million check. He says he has never cared about money, even when he worked in Big Oil, he never got paid and today he is NOT a millionaire.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover120905.htm
Tim Ball @9:58 — On the contrary, you miss MY point.
I am an astronomer, and astrophysics shares a large amount of science base with climate science. I have been a research scientist for decades, and published well over 100 peer-reviewed articles. I have taught the principles of science to thousands of students. I am not a climate scientist, and have never made a dime off climatology. All I have is the deep knowledge of science and the scientific community accrued over a long career.
My professional judgment is that my colleagues in the earth sciences who tell us that this is a serious, looming problem are entirely justified, and that if anything they are being conservative. I know many of the people that this blog routinely demonizes. They are first-rate scientists and their work is excellent. They are vastly stronger scientists than the pretenders that this blog touts.
This site is, frankly, hilarious. Any decent scientist reading it can tell very quickly that it’s the amateur hour. A site that would publish Nikolov and Zeller’s “Unified Theory of Climate” for anything but pure comedy value is, well ….
You can moderate this out, or leave it. Your choice.
palindrom says:
May 5, 2014 at 6:11 pm
Well, your comment is left in. Good. Our practice here is to leave such comments visible.
Your comment is also proved dead wrong. The so-called “scientists” you claim to admire have been proved wrong in their claims by the 17 years of steady temperatures while CO2 increased, and the 30 years between 1945-1975 when CO2 rose, but temperatures declined.
I pity the youth you claim pride in instructing.
Show us evidence – not of an increase in global temperatures, since those have been increasing since 1650. Rather, show us proof that increases in man’s use of energy and release of CO2 cause an increase in global temperatures.
By the way, today: Just the “excess” Antarctic sea ice alone is 93% the size of Greenland. At the rate it has increased since May 2010 (4 years ago) Antarctic sea ice will block the Magellan Straits and Cape Horn to shipping traffic within 8-12 years………
“palindrom says:
May 5, 2014 at 6:11 pm
Tim Ball @9:58 — On the contrary, you miss MY point.
I am an astronomer, and astrophysics shares a large amount of science base with climate science. I have been a research scientist for decades, and published well over 100 peer-reviewed articles. I have taught the principles of science to thousands of students. I am not a climate scientist, and have never made a dime off climatology. All I have is the deep knowledge of science and the scientific community accrued over a long career.
My professional judgment is that my colleagues in the earth sciences who tell us that this is a serious, looming problem are entirely justified, and that if anything they are being conservative. I know many of the people that this blog routinely demonizes. They are first-rate scientists and their work is excellent. They are vastly stronger scientists than the pretenders that this blog touts.
This site is, frankly, hilarious. Any decent scientist reading it can tell very quickly that it’s the amateur hour. A site that would publish Nikolov and Zeller’s “Unified Theory of Climate” for anything but pure comedy value is, well ….
You can moderate this out, or leave it. Your choice.”
Why don’t you share your superior wisdom with this community and teach us something?
RACook — Heh heh. Your entire post is PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). To pick but one grossly misleading statement, while it may be accurate that the excess Antarctic sea ice is 93% the size of Greenland, there’s no comparison whatsoever in volume — Greenland is land ice, thousands of feet thick.
One question for the readership: Why do essentially none of the points of view expressed here get traction in the professional literature? I know quite a few earth and atmospheric scientists. They are extremely competent. They are not crooks. They are not intellectually dishonest. If a good argument came along that refuted AGW, and which stood up to challenge, they would accept it, with a good bit of relief. But there is, unfortunately, no such argument that is held to be valid b by people outside of the blogular echo chamber. And it’s not a matter of politics. Barry Bickmore is a conservative Republican, and there are others.
palindrom says:
May 5, 2014 at 7:24 pm
And it’s not a matter of politics……
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/05/podesta-congress-cant-stop-obama-on-global-warming/
From what planet are you?
“Why don’t you share your superior wisdom with this community and teach us something?”
The subject is huge, and I’m frankly not a deep expert. But I can tell you who a few people whom I believe know what they’re doing —
— Ray Pierrehumbert has superb physical insight and is deeply knowledgeable. His Physics Today article on “Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature” is as close to my field as climate science gets, and it’s a real tour-de-force. He has a beard. He sometimes makes funny videos. So what?
— Tamino gets things right pretty much all the time, and keeps his eye on the ball.
— Gavin Schmidt is also excellent. I once had the opportunity to speak to him face-to-face for a couple of hours. Numerical modeling has a long and deep history in astrophysics, and from my familiarity with this, I came away persuaded that Schmidt has a deep understanding of what models are and what they are not.
— And even if Michael Mann were a crook, a liar, a cheat, and a swindle — which he isn’t — his work has been reproduced so many times that obsessing over his “hockey stick” is, well, ridiculous.
My main points: Scientists are not crooks. They are not in this to get rich. They are not even especially political. They are sounding the alarm in good faith because their best information tells them that civilization is heading for serious problems.
I’m sorry, but this is reality. I recommend, by the way, Bruce Bartlett’s article in “The American Conservative”, entitled “The Revenge of the Reality-Based Community”. What’s going on here is not reality — it’s Potemkin-village science combined with a grossly cynical, and often downright bizarre, misreading of the nature and motivations of the scientific community. It’s nonsense.