<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Freedom of Information – Jones et al 1990</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/</link>
	<description>by Steve McIntyre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 05:07:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Climate Audit and NOAA FOI Policy &#171; Climate Audit</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-317421</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Climate Audit and NOAA FOI Policy &#171; Climate Audit]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-317421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] on the grounds of unresponsiveness on March 12, 2007, their partial acquiescence on April 3, 2007, my follow-up on the part where they remained unresponsiveness and their final refusal.. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] on the grounds of unresponsiveness on March 12, 2007, their partial acquiescence on April 3, 2007, my follow-up on the part where they remained unresponsiveness and their final refusal.. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Measuring Precipitation on Willis&#039; Boots &#171; Climate Audit</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-317416</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Measuring Precipitation on Willis&#039; Boots &#171; Climate Audit]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:26:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-317416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] reply to the 2nd iteration of the FOI request is here In regards the gridded network&#8217; stations, I have been informed that the Climate Research [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] reply to the 2nd iteration of the FOI request is here In regards the gridded network&#8217; stations, I have been informed that the Climate Research [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Jones and the China Network: Part 2 &#171; Climate Audit</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-244917</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Phil Jones and the China Network: Part 2 &#171; Climate Audit]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-244917</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] had had 5 locations in 30 years), with a number of comments between April 3 and April 15 e.g. here here here here and others. While Keenan’s comments on the issue at CA paused in mid-April, he [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] had had 5 locations in 30 years), with a number of comments between April 3 and April 15 e.g. here here here here and others. While Keenan’s comments on the issue at CA paused in mid-April, he [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The FOI Myth #2 &#171; Climate Audit</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-213411</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The FOI Myth #2 &#171; Climate Audit]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:36:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-213411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] record of what stations they used. FOI officer Palmer quickly resiled from these untrue claims and reported:  upon further investigation and work, we have uncovered the annual input data for the paper of Dr. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] record of what stations they used. FOI officer Palmer quickly resiled from these untrue claims and reported:  upon further investigation and work, we have uncovered the annual input data for the paper of Dr. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John M</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-84019</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-84019</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With regard to disclosure of data, the most recent issue of Nature has an editorial aimed at drug research.  (“Addicted to secrecy,” Nature 446, 832 (19 April 2007), available &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/446832b.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; if you have a subscription or want to give your credit card a workout.)  Although it was prompted by some legal decisions, where as part of the agreement, plaintiffs and drug companies agreed to have relevant documents sealed, the subject seems topical with regard to climate research as well.

This is a quote highlighted in the article:


&lt;blockquote&gt;Scientific bodies have an interest in ensuring that as many public-health data as possible are released into the public domain.&lt;/blockquote&gt;


It would seem to me that with all the claims being made about the adverse effect of climate change, publications such as Nature and Science ought to demand as much transparency from climate researchers as they demand for the medical-related studies they report on and publish.

The article closes with this paragraph:


&lt;blockquote&gt;The industry&#039;s reputation, as well as the public good, will benefit in the long run from arrangements that get pertinent information about drug safety into the public domain as quickly as possible. Global registers of clinical-trial results are probably the most pressing requirement here. But less court-imposed secrecy around public health would also be a positive step, in part by helping to ensure that companies are fully complying with such registers.&lt;/blockquote&gt;



John M (with a space), not to be confused with JohnM (no space)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With regard to disclosure of data, the most recent issue of Nature has an editorial aimed at drug research.  (“Addicted to secrecy,” Nature 446, 832 (19 April 2007), available <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/446832b.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> if you have a subscription or want to give your credit card a workout.)  Although it was prompted by some legal decisions, where as part of the agreement, plaintiffs and drug companies agreed to have relevant documents sealed, the subject seems topical with regard to climate research as well.</p>
<p>This is a quote highlighted in the article:</p>
<blockquote><p>Scientific bodies have an interest in ensuring that as many public-health data as possible are released into the public domain.</p></blockquote>
<p>It would seem to me that with all the claims being made about the adverse effect of climate change, publications such as Nature and Science ought to demand as much transparency from climate researchers as they demand for the medical-related studies they report on and publish.</p>
<p>The article closes with this paragraph:</p>
<blockquote><p>The industry&#8217;s reputation, as well as the public good, will benefit in the long run from arrangements that get pertinent information about drug safety into the public domain as quickly as possible. Global registers of clinical-trial results are probably the most pressing requirement here. But less court-imposed secrecy around public health would also be a positive step, in part by helping to ensure that companies are fully complying with such registers.</p></blockquote>
<p>John M (with a space), not to be confused with JohnM (no space)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-84018</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:04:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-84018</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re #55: Good luck, keep the pressure up]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re #55: Good luck, keep the pressure up</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve McIntyre</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-84017</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve McIntyre]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-84017</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve sent the following further letter to David Palmer:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Dear Mr Palmer,

Thank you for your courtesy and attention in this matter, which has successfully resolved part (A) of my request. However part (B) remains outstanding and I re-iterate my previous request for this information:

&quot;A) the identification of the stations ... for the following three Jones et al 1990 networks:

1. the west Russian network
2. the Chinese network
3. the Australian network

B) identification ... of the stations used in the gridded network which was used as a comparandum in this study&quot;

Thank you for your attention.

Regards, Steve McIntyre
&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve sent the following further letter to David Palmer:</p>
<blockquote><p>Dear Mr Palmer,</p>
<p>Thank you for your courtesy and attention in this matter, which has successfully resolved part (A) of my request. However part (B) remains outstanding and I re-iterate my previous request for this information:</p>
<p>&#8220;A) the identification of the stations &#8230; for the following three Jones et al 1990 networks:</p>
<p>1. the west Russian network<br />
2. the Chinese network<br />
3. the Australian network</p>
<p>B) identification &#8230; of the stations used in the gridded network which was used as a comparandum in this study&#8221;</p>
<p>Thank you for your attention.</p>
<p>Regards, Steve McIntyre
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarkW</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-84016</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MarkW]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-84016</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Was that freedom OF information, or freedom FROM information?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was that freedom OF information, or freedom FROM information?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Baltutis</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-84015</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Baltutis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-84015</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re: #51

Anyone find it yet?

Re: #52

Well stated. Keep up the pressure. They&#039;ll eventually find the grease for your squeaky wheel.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: #51</p>
<p>Anyone find it yet?</p>
<p>Re: #52</p>
<p>Well stated. Keep up the pressure. They&#8217;ll eventually find the grease for your squeaky wheel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Willis Eschenbach</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/04/03/freedom-of-information-jones-et-al-1990/#comment-84014</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Willis Eschenbach]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1323#comment-84014</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, I have replied to Mr. Palmer&#039;s response to my FOI request, as follows:


&lt;blockquote&gt;Dear Mr. Palmer:

Thank you for your response. However, it does not solve the problem. In your original response you said:

&lt;strong&gt;Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below.

The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php

This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site.

Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate &amp; Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/

Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems).

They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data.

In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below

Exemption    Reason

s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means    Some information is publicly available on external websites&lt;/strong&gt;

While it is good to know that the data is available at those two web sites, that information is useless without a list of stations used by Jones et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 dataset. As I said in my request, I am asking for:

&lt;strong&gt;1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and

2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site&#039;s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.&quot;
&lt;/strong&gt;
Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), it is not possible to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does not apply - I still cannot access the data.

I don&#039;t understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a simple list of the sites and where each site&#039;s data is located. Pointing at two huge piles of data and saying, in effect, &quot;The data is in there somewhere&quot; does not help at all.

To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of the stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this:

&lt;code&gt;WMO#_____Name_____Source
58457____HangZhou___NCAR
58659____WenZhou____NCAR
59316____ShanTou____GHCN
57516____ChongQing___NMS
&lt;/code&gt;
etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 temperature data.

That is the information requested, and it is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; available &quot;on non-UEA websites&quot;, or anywhere else that I have been able to find.

I appreciate all of your assistance in this matter, and I trust we can get it resolved satisfactorily.

Best regards,

w.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

The beat goes on ... as the I Ching says ... &quot;Perseverance furthers.&quot;

w.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I have replied to Mr. Palmer&#8217;s response to my FOI request, as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>Dear Mr. Palmer:</p>
<p>Thank you for your response. However, it does not solve the problem. In your original response you said:</p>
<p><strong>Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below.</p>
<p>The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at:<br />
<a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php</a></p>
<p>This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site.</p>
<p>Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate &amp; Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: <a href="http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/</a></p>
<p>Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems).</p>
<p>They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data.</p>
<p>In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below</p>
<p>Exemption    Reason</p>
<p>s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means    Some information is publicly available on external websites</strong></p>
<p>While it is good to know that the data is available at those two web sites, that information is useless without a list of stations used by Jones et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 dataset. As I said in my request, I am asking for:</p>
<p><strong>1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and</p>
<p>2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site&#8217;s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.&#8221;<br />
</strong><br />
Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), it is not possible to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does not apply &#8211; I still cannot access the data.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a simple list of the sites and where each site&#8217;s data is located. Pointing at two huge piles of data and saying, in effect, &#8220;The data is in there somewhere&#8221; does not help at all.</p>
<p>To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of the stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this:</p>
<p><code>WMO#_____Name_____Source<br />
58457____HangZhou___NCAR<br />
58659____WenZhou____NCAR<br />
59316____ShanTou____GHCN<br />
57516____ChongQing___NMS<br />
</code><br />
etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 temperature data.</p>
<p>That is the information requested, and it is <em>not</em> available &#8220;on non-UEA websites&#8221;, or anywhere else that I have been able to find.</p>
<p>I appreciate all of your assistance in this matter, and I trust we can get it resolved satisfactorily.</p>
<p>Best regards,</p>
<p>w.</p></blockquote>
<p>The beat goes on &#8230; as the I Ching says &#8230; &#8220;Perseverance furthers.&#8221;</p>
<p>w.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
