Fortress CRU #2: Confidential Agent Ammann

On March 31, 2008, David Holland sent a letter to Keith Briffa asking about several IPCC issues. In correspondence released from the Hadley Center, Briffa indicated his intention of being unresponsive. On May 15, Briffa sent an unresponsive reply to Holland, following which Holland initiated a FOI request on May 27, 2008 leading to an acknowledgement on June 3 and Refusal Notice on June 20. This one has additional interest in that Holland asked for copies of expert comments on IPCC chapter 6 sent directly by Caspar Ammann to Keith Briffa, sent outside the formal review process. Both Briffa and Ammann refused to release these comments. For some reason, Ammann seems to think that he is not subject to IPCC requirements that expert comments be open and that he is entitled to make secret comments.

May 27 FOI Request
David Palmer, Information Policy Officer
Information Services Directorate
University of East Anglia
Norwich

Dear Mr Palmer,
Your Ref: FOI_08-23 IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process

Thank you for your letter of 19th May 2008. My request remains on the basis of either the FOIA or the EIR and it is not immediately obvious to me how one decides which might apply in advance.

I have now read Dr Briffa’s letter of 15th May in answer to mine of 31st March for which I have thanked him. As he indicates that he will refer further enquiries to you. I must advise you that I do not feel it answers any of my questions satisfactorily apart from the last and continue to seek any and all documents held by CRU relating to Dr Briffa’s participation in the IPCC, 2007 assessment reports.

In addition to the questions I put to Dr Briffa, and without limiting my request for all information relating to the IPCC assessment process not already in the public domain, I will specify further particular areas for which I am seeking information.

1. The IPCC stated on July 1, 2006:

“We are very grateful to the many reviewers of the second draft of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for suggestions received on issues of balance and citation of additional scientific literature.”

Did the IPCC receive any such “suggestions” in a written form other than those reported in the documents for each chapter entitled “IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report: Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second-Order Draft”2? If so, please provide them.

2. The IPCC also stated on July 1, 2006:

“Reviewers are invited to submit copies of additional papers that are either in-press or published in 2006, along with the chapter and section number to which this material could pertain, via email to ipcc-wg1 AT al.noaa.gov, not later than July 24, 2006. In the case of in-press papers a copy of the final acceptance letter from the journal is requested for our records. All submissions must be received by the TSU not later than July 24, 2006 and incomplete submissions can not be accepted.”

Please provide a copy of all such responses.
Any such responses described in 1 and 2 above are clearly “written expert and government review comments” as defined in “Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports” in the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

3. Please also supply any emails or other documents from IPCC contributing author Caspar Ammann or the Journal Climatic Change that discuss any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process.

Yours sincerely,
David Holland

June 3, 2008 Acknowledgement

Dear Mr Holland,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST
(Our Ref: FOI_08-31)

I acknowledge your request for information received on 27 May 2008. Your request is being considered and you will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party. I recognise that this query is pursuant to another ongoing request but the nature of this request and the inquiries require to meet it are such that it would be more efficient and effective to deal with them as two separate requests.

[standard language]

June 20 Refusal Notice

Dear Mr Holland,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST (Our Ref: FOI_08-31)

Your request for information received on 27 May 2008 has now been considered and it is, unfortunately, not possible to meet your request.

In accordance with s.17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below:

Exemption: Reason

s.1(1)(a) Right to be informed if information held” : Information not held

s.41, Information provided in confidence: Release of the information could result in an actionable breach of confidence

We are unable to provide the information requested in sections (1) and (2) as we simply do not have the requested information. After consultation with colleagues, I would suggest that you contact the IPCC directly for this information.

In regards the correspondence from Mr. Ammann, s.41 is applicable as we have consistently treated this information as confidential and have been assured by Mr. Ammann that he believes it to be confidential and would expect it to be treated as such. The public interest in withholding this information outweighs that of releasing it due to the need to protect the openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse prior to publication which, in turn, assures that such cooperation & openness can continue and inform scientific research and debate.

I apologise that your request will not be met but if you have any further information needs in the future then please contact me.
If you have any queries or concerns, or, if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact me at: …

David Palmer

As noted previously, IPCC policies state:

All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five years.

And yet here we have the spectacle of Caspar Ammann, sending expert comments to IPCC author Keith Briffa, stating that he “believes” his expert comments to an IPCC author to have been sent in “confidence”. What a crock.

70 Comments

  1. kim
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    Isn’t a lawsuit next?
    ============

  2. Stan Palmer
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse prior to publication

    I am very surprised that the IPCC process is regarded as “academic”. it is most clearly not. it is an advisory process for governments.

    This is just another example of why something as important as the IPCC should be taken out of the hands of academic scientists. This is not just another journal paper that we are discussing

  3. kim
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    You have an excellent point there, Stan. Academic privilege, even that necessary for academic freedom, do not take a back seat to the rights of free people in a free society. That is part of the point of freedom of information acts.
    =========================================================

  4. Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM | Permalink

    Incredible. What in the world would he have to hide, except a self-referencing “peer-review?”

    FOIA requests are often released with those parts deemed truly sensitive redacted.

  5. Fred
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    As the Watergate kiddies found out, it is the cover-up that is always the problem.

  6. TheDude
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    Sue the bitches.

  7. Jim Edwards
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    Palmer gives as a reason for denial:

    s.41, Information provided in confidence: Release of the information could result in an actionable breach of confidence

    Which can reasonably be interpreted to mean that Caspar Amman can sue CRU if the comment is released, because the past practices of CRU [or an explicit promise] lead Amman to reasonably believe that they wouldn’t release it.

    This interpretation is bolstered by a following paragraph:

    In regards the correspondence from Mr. Ammann, s.41 is applicable as we have consistently treated this information as confidential and have been assured by Mr. Ammann that he believes it to be confidential and would expect it to be treated as such. The public interest in withholding this information outweighs that of releasing it due to the need to protect the openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse prior to publication which, in turn, assures that such cooperation & openness can continue and inform scientific research and debate.

    Palmer may be on strong ground here. If Amman had sent his comments through the official channels, then he would have to expect that they’d end up in the archives – so he’d have no viable complaint. If Amman purposefully sent his comments outside the normal channels, maybe he did so to avoid the archives. Now we simply have a letter from one scientist to another. The fact that Amman and Briffa may have broken IPCC regs doesn’t necessarily impact UK tort law.

    One reasonable question to ask is if CRU can legally grant confidentiality to Amman for this purpose. Clearly, if a regulator required documentation of an additive to an industrial process that amounted to a “trade secret,” confidentiality would be in order. The same could be said for the location of a breeding spot for blue whales. Those examples are likely covered by statute, and CRU doesn’t get to make up new exceptions to FOI. Is Amman’s comment explicitly exempted from FOI ?

    If there is a law granting free access to government-held documents, CRU’s past “consistent treatment” shouldn’t give Amman a leg to stand on, b/c it’s unreasonable to rely on gov’t agencies to break the law.

  8. stan
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

    7,

    If he expects his comments to be confidential, they should not have any bearing on “scientific” reports which are intended to influence public policy. He can keep his thoughts to himself or he can seek to influence government policy. He should never be allowed to do both.

    In the US, one of our bedrock constitutional principles is the right to confront an accuser. I think the same underlying rationale applies here. No one should be taxed and regulated into poverty on the basis of “secret science”.

  9. MA in VA
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    I guess what struck me was the phrase “… the need to protect the openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse.” Maybe I don’t understand it from an academic point of view but how can one have both “openness” and “confidentiality” at the same time? I can see how one would want to maintain confidentiality while working on an experiment or developing a theorem but once it is released isn’t openness the only way to properly vet it? Ahhhh, maybe that is the breakdown in my logic…..

  10. Jim Edwards
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    #9, MA in VA:

    You can have an “open” discussion with your priest or psychiatrist. The substance of your conversation would be “confidential.”

    #8, Stan:

    I don’t disagree with you, but what is wrong is not always proscribed by law. David Holland is relying on the law to provide a remedy. The law may or may not provide him one – regardless of the justice / fairness of his arguments.

  11. Patrick M.
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 2:10 PM | Permalink

    I would guess that the people in question are most likely reading every word here on CA and are taking notes, (in invisible ink of course), on what works on obstructing FOI requests for future reference…

  12. stan
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

    10 Jim,

    Just as various Supreme Court judges have written that what is legal is not necessarily good. Regardless of whether any particular FOI obstruction effort is ultimately successful from a legal perspective, the court of last resort is public opinion. FOI obstruction is likely a Pyrrhic victory for those who engage in it. [In the end, a Congressional subpoena ended Mann's effort to maintain his secrets.]

    If the public concludes that the IPCC is really a covert, secret society which is unwilling to reach conclusions through open and honest scientific debate, those currently involved in FOI obstruction will be hurt the most.

  13. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

    #7. Jim, take a look at some of the UK policy statements; you’re being far too generous to the agency. The supposed breach of confidentiality has to be “actionable”.

    2.3 This exemption only applies if a breach of confidence would be “actionable”. A breach of confidence will only be “actionable” if a person could bring an action and be successful. The courts have recognised that a person will not succeed in an action for breach of confidence if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in keeping the confidence.

    Personally I find it pretty hard to envisage circumstances in which Ammann could sue IPCC or CRU for breach of confidence. I am sure that neither CRU nor IPCC undertook confidentiality. Indeed, as noted repeatedly, IPCC policies require all comments to be maintained in an open public archive. The policy is not limited to comments submitted on Reviewer spreadsheets. So Ammann could not expect confidentiality.

    Also note that under UK policy is against public authorities accepting information in confidence if it’s not confidential in nature.

    47. A public authority should only accept information from third parties in confidence if it is necessary to obtain that information in connection with the exercise of any of the authority’s functions and it would not otherwise be provided. In addition, public authorities should not agree to hold information received from third parties “in confidence” which is not confidential in nature. Again, acceptance of any confidentiality provisions must be for good reasons, capable of being justified to the Commissioner. https://www.igt.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/KnowledgeBase/KB%5CLord%20Chancellors%20Dept%5CLCD_section%2045%20codepafunc.pdf

    I doubt that CRU gave any undertakings to Ammann in advance.

    Their principal weapon is the weapon of all bureaucrats – obstruction, wearing out the inquirer and having access to public funds to carry out their obstruction.

    Sunshine is a bit of a disinfectant and surely it must be embarrassing to third party climate scientists to witness this sort of nonsense.

  14. henry
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 2:42 PM | Permalink

    Maybe I should read more, but can’t a letter be sent to the IPCC secretariat, asking about the breach of rules, IE, the records not being kept for 5 years?

  15. Bill in Vigo
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    I shouldn’t wonder if there might be some attempt at adjusting what some comments might have been due to the current state of affairs. (Fuel costs, flat or negative temperature abnormalities.) That Mr. Palmer is going along with the confidentiality of obviously multinational assessment of published scientific studies that the review must be written and submitted by date specific to a public forum (IPCC is a publicly operated United Nations forum) that are directed to be archived for a minimum of five years is ridiculous. When the bottom of the sludge is reached I fear that some heads will roll and the scientific community may take years to recover the credibility it will lose during this process. I fear that the term climate science will be a laughing stock for many a year after this fiasco.

    Bill Derryberry

  16. Jim Edwards
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

    #11, Patrick M.:

    I’m sure their information officer knows more about it than anybody here. This is what bureaucracies do when somebody puts an internal hold on documents. Besides, what works best is writing a FOI request they can’t slip out of – the request language is something the “people in question” don’t have under their control.

    #12, stan:

    Agreed. Now you just have to find a media outlet to pick up the story about the great IPCC conspiracy to defy a Freedom of Information request. It is good to report progress here, so interested people can see who’s afraid of the light. Don’t expect the general public to be influenced until a bunch of reporters jump on the bandwagon – probably only after AGW turns out to be a bust.

    [Future headline: "We're shocked, shocked, to find out there wasn't 100% agreement that the world was going to end..."]

    A lawsuit would get some press coverage, however, see how Congress’s attempts to get information was spun in the press into an assault on academic freedom.

  17. David Holland
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

    #14
    Henry,
    Done that 27 May 2008 – no reply.
    Asked for Acknowledgment 17 June – no reply.

  18. Fred
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    summary:

    Our conclusions are for public consumption.

    How we determined them are private.

    In other words, “trust us”

    Not bloody likely.

  19. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    Re: #12

    Just as various Supreme Court judges have written that what is legal is not necessarily good. Regardless of whether any particular FOI obstruction effort is ultimately successful from a legal perspective, the court of last resort is public opinion. FOI obstruction is likely a Pyrrhic victory for those who engage in it. [In the end, a Congressional subpoena ended Mann's effort to maintain his secrets.]

    Stan, I just came in from the garden to voice a comment much in the same vain that you did here. The important issue here is the IPCC’s intent is in these matters and not what can be defended in a lawyerly argument. Jim Edwards make good points and is obviously familiar with the prevailing legal issues in these matters. It would seem that these interpretations of the FOI come down to what a judge might rule is in the public and governments’ interests and goods in these matters. I think if the tables were turned in this matter where a less than consensus view was being promulgated and a more popular and better represented group that was more prone to litigation, the IPCC would be forced to reveal these documents as part of discovery or under public pressure.

    While ideally I would want anything related to government policy to be revealed and would defend privacy to the limit in private matters, I suspect without outside pressure and favorable judicial rulings these reactions from the IPCC give us more a view of their motivations, or confirmation of them for some of us, than anything else.

    When the IPCC makes a big deal of using likelihood levels and describes the limits in great detail and then refuses to reveal in the individual cases how these levels where arrived at, I and others, not among the amen choir, have our doubts. The public will not be concerned until attempts at mitigation start affecting their lives adversely or they become much more aware of the issues then they currently are.

  20. theduke
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    David Holland, 17: the IPCC is not responding to requests for information regarding breach of rules in their deliberative process? Would it be possible to get a reporter for the Daily Telegraph or some such to investigate?

  21. Jim Edwards
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

    #13 Steve M.:

    The UK section 47 you blocked was what I was trying to get at w/ the last 2 paragraphs of my #7. CRU can’t create additional exemptions to FOI.

    First, Amman can only have a cause of action if he’s been granted confidentiality [implicitly or explicitly]. Palmer’s saying there’s been an implicit grant.

    Second, Amman’s claim can only be actionable if there’s some legal basis for the confidentiality. The fact that he has a friend in the gov’t who promised not to tell isn’t enough.

    Third, you mention a balancing test between disclosure and confidentiality. Even if Amman has been granted valid confidentiality, it gets disclosed if it’s in the public interest.

    So there are THREE separate arguments to challenge Palmer’s exemption, on appeal. Any one argument should defeat Palmer’s determination.

    The fact that Amman / Briffa et Al. may have violated a contract with IPCC doesn’t necessarily mean you can use FOI to keep them from having secret conversations. FOI will apply or not, regardless of their actions vis-a-vis IPCC. Briffa has a document on his gov’t computer; it’s subject to FOI or it isn’t – end of story.

    To go back to my trade secret analogy, the government shouldn’t release the formula for Coca-Cola, if it was only turned over to the FDA solely for mandated regulatory purposes. The fact that Coca-Cola agreed to give it to Consumer Reports, but failed to do so, should not change the government’s duty to maintain confidentiality. If, on the other hand, one of the ingredients is a known carcinogen, it would be proper for the FDA to release that fact – as it would be in the public interest. If Coca-Cola voluntarily sent in the formula with a patent application, it should and would be released.

    Whether the goverment should hand over the information depends upon the circumstances under which the government received it and the public interest.

  22. TheDude
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    A lawsuit would be a grand public spectacle. It would force the IPCC to announce to the world that they do, in fact, have something to hide.

    I would personally contribute money to such an effort.

  23. EJ
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    Keeping records for “… five years…” The stall has begun. When does this bell ring? After the report publication? Court cases take years.

    Regarding “…openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse…” First, that statement seems oxymoronic to me. Second, how can the IPCC charter be considered an acedemic enterprise?

    At the end of the day, what reputable scientist can continue to regard those who continue to hide behind these absurd non-disclosure postures in many areas of climate science credible?

    These hide and seek actions should disqualify those who do so from any further serious consideration from the SERIOUS climate science community and journals. This is the most serious issue facing said community and, if not remedied, will have a devestating effect.

  24. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

    Jim, obviously Palmer saying something doesn’t make it so. Here is a UK policy statement:

    Whether or not a public authority holds information subject to a duty of confidence depends largely on the circumstances in which it was obtained and whether the public authority expressly agreed to keep it confidential. Unlike many of the other exemptions under the Act, public authorities must therefore consider the application of this exemption not only when the disclosure of confidential information is requested under the Act but also whenever it obtains information which may be confidential. The Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice, issued under section 45 of the Act, limits the circumstances in which a public authority should agree to hold information in confidence.

    I don’t believe for a minute that CRU “expressly agreed” to keep Ammann’s comment confidential. So we have to consider the “circumstances in which [Ammann's comment] was obtained”. It was not provided as personal information or even in connection with an academic paper, but in connection with IPCC, a hugely public enterprise.

    A point to consider is that Briffa did not then keep Ammann’s observations confidential. For example, Briffa used Ammann’s comments in answering Review Comments – points made in then unpublished and unsubmitted Ammann and Wahl 2007 were relied on one of Briffa’s answers.

    As to Palmer’s specific languagem he says

    In regards the correspondence from Mr. Ammann, s.41 is applicable as we have consistently treated this information as confidential

    I wonder what evidence exists for this claim and how this is consistent with Briffa’s use of Ammann’s information in IPCC Review Comments.

    As to Palmer’s assessment of public interest:

    The public interest in withholding this information outweighs that of releasing it due to the need to protect the openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse prior to publication which, in turn, assures that such cooperation & openness can continue and inform scientific research and debate.

    I don;’t see that this is responsive to an IPCC situation.

  25. Reid
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    TheDude says “A lawsuit would be a grand public spectacle.”

    How do you sue the IPCC? I doubt any court has jurisdiction to sue the IPCC. This will be a longterm bureaucratic battle that will be moot in 5 years when the next IPCC report arrives. Media exposure is the best remedy.

    It is my understanding the IPCC still hasn’t named the 2,500 scientists they keep referring to.

  26. EJ
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

    We need to create a central record of those who refuse to disclose, and those who reinforce non-disclosure.

  27. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

    http://www.foi.gov.uk/guidance/exguide/sec41/chap03.htm has interesting comments

  28. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    Can anyone refer me to prior discussions of this supposed principle:

    need to protect the openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse prior to publication which, in turn, assures that such cooperation & openness can continue and inform scientific research and debate

    (not that it validly applies, but just for curiosity.).

  29. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 6:35 PM | Permalink

    In order to establish an actionable breach of confidence, the complainant must prove (a) that the information conveyed was confidential, (b) that it was communicated in confidence, (c) that it was misused by the party to whom it was communicated, and (d) detriment to the complainant. International Corona v Lac Minerals, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574.

    As it happens, the Lac-Corona case was a huge case in the Canadian mining business. I followed it from beginning to end and I’ve read all the decisions from trial court to the Canadian Supreme Court. I’ve done a considerable amount of study on confidentiality law. I can’t see how the CRU position can be sustained.

  30. MarkR
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 7:00 PM | Permalink

    Shouldn’t this claim also be under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004?

  31. maksimovich
    Posted Jun 20, 2008 at 7:11 PM | Permalink

    Re 30 is correct here the met is bound by the The Environmental Information Regulations 2004.This is in Eu law as well.

    It is necessary to ensure that any natural and legal person has a right of access to environmental information held by or for public authorities without his having to state an interest.

    (9) It is also necessary that public authorities make available and disseminate environmental information to the general public to the widest extent possible, in particular by using information and communication technologies. The future development of these technologies should be taken into account in the reporting on, and reviewing of, this Directive

    (12) Environmental information which is physically held by other bodies on behalf of public authorities should also fall within the scope of this Directive.

    (13) Environmental information should be made available to applicants as soon as possible and within a reasonable time and having regard to any timescale specified by the applicant.

    http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st03/st03667-re02en02.pdf

  32. Nylo
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 4:04 AM | Permalink

    I think there are 2 separate things here. 1) Amman is free to send comments outside the ordinary procedures so that those comments are treated confidentially. however, 2) The IPCC cannot base any of their reports on anything that cannot be publicly accesed. So as long as those hidden comments from Amman didn’t have any influence in the report, it is ok for me that they are kept confidential.

    Anyway I fail to understand why would Amman send confidential comments in a process whose discussion is supposed to be publicly available, if not to obscure the process.

  33. henry
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 4:13 AM | Permalink

    25 Reid says:

    TheDude says “A lawsuit would be a grand public spectacle.”

    How do you sue the IPCC? I doubt any court has jurisdiction to sue the IPCC. This will be a longterm bureaucratic battle that will be moot in 5 years when the next IPCC report arrives. Media exposure is the best remedy.

    It is my understanding the IPCC still hasn’t named the 2,500 scientists they keep referring to.

    But now, when the next IPCC report is started, all it will take will be one reviewer, recieving and keeping an email, that might start the unravelling.

  34. dearieme
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 4:21 AM | Permalink

    “how can one have both “openness” and “confidentiality” at the same time?” By confining discussion to a club of like-minded people.

  35. Caleb
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 5:27 AM | Permalink

    EJ echoes my sentiments in #23 when he states:

    At the end of the day, what reputable scientist can continue to regard those who continue to hide behind these absurd non-disclosure postures in many areas of climate science credible?

    These hide and seek actions should disqualify those who do so from any further serious consideration from the SERIOUS climate science community and journals. This is the most serious issue facing said community and, if not remedied, will have a devestating effect.

    In some ways all the mumbo-jumbo of lawyers doesn’t matter. One reaches a point when the behavior of another is so obviously suspect that one can’t look them in the face without thinking, “Liar.” They can strut about and posture like peacocks all they want, but with everyone thinking, “Liar,” their strutting only makes them look all the more foolish.

    However in another way the lawyerly mumbo-jumbo is hugely important, because there are examples in history where people who were false had political and economic power, and when they strutted about like peacocks they were able to cause pain and suffering, even though many looked at them and thought, “Liar.”

    Therefore, though I myself don’t have the temperment and stamina to endure the petty, nit-picking legal work involved in this issue, I hugely appreciate those who are able to avoid turning purple and exploding in sputtering rage, and instead calmly do the work of legally confronting the false.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!

    Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
    Scottish author & novelist (1771 – 1832)

  36. stan
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 6:00 AM | Permalink

    33,
    snip

    As for the discussion regarding the current FOI obstruction, I don’t have any opinion regarding the strength or weakness of any legal claim or defense on the confidentiality issue. As a lawyer, I’d have to do a tremendous amount of research to get up to speed on the fine points of the governing law and precedents. My point was merely that an FOI request is simply one small step in a very large enterprise — trying to get genuine public disclosure for the science and the process.

    The scientists who seek to avoid disclosure will lose when the public gets interested. Which they will (and are). No one will look favorably on those who advocate wrenching change to our way of life on the basis of “secret science”. That’s a no-brainer.

    Ultimately, the effort to keep secrets will have greater influence on public opinion than the revelations which they seek to avoid. You can draw parallels to M&M’s efforts to review Mann’s work. In the end, the most damning fact to come to light was the very first thing that Steve learned when he contacted Mann — that no other scientist had ever bothered to check Mann’s work. That fundamental failure of the review process will end up carrying more weight with the general public than the details of Mann’s shortcomings. The absence of review is more significant because it impugns far more than the errors contained in a single study. Similarly, the this FOI obstruction effort to keep secrets speaks volumes of the IPCC process which are more damning than the details of one reviewer’s undisclosed comments.

  37. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 6:13 AM | Permalink

    #32 and 35. It is a tangled web indeed. Briffa used Ammann’s comments and the use can be proven. Here is a review comment about Chapter 6.

    6-735 A 29:40 29:51 The next two sentences refer to 2 important items: the failure of statistical significance of Mann’s results and the biased PC method. But then, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, the first point is dropped by saying “the latter point may have some foundation…” The former point matters acutely and has completely solid foundation, as has been spelled out in papers to which your attention was drawn after the FOD. First, the RE significance benchmark for MBH98 is 0.51, not 0.00, as had been claimed in MBH98. The higher benchmark was established in MM05a and further settled in our exchange with Huybers, notably MM05d, and is the final word in the perr-reviewed literature on the subject. Unfortunately the authors of this section omit any mention of it and ignore MM05d altogether even when referring to Huybers’ comment. Second, the r2 test score is 0.0 in the earliest portions of MBH. This is not contested by Wahl and Ammann, indeed they computed the r2 and CE values for each grid step, confirming insignificant skill through to the late 1700s. This is shown in Table 1S of the Wahl and Ammann paper, which was left out of the preprint version supplied to the LA’s for the December deadline.

    For inexplicable reasons, a version without Table 1S is still posted on the IPCC reviewer web page (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/restricted/review/SOR/SORUnpub/Ch06/In_Press/Wahl_&_Ammann.pdf), though at some point after the release of the SOD a different final version (this time including the Appendix and Table 1S) was also posted, so now there are two different versions on the IPCC reviewer web page.

    Under the circumstances, since LAs have been working off a version that underwent substantial modification after the deadline, we would be justified in demanding all references to W&A be removed. Third, the claim in Wahl and Ammann that an RE benchmark of 0.0 can still be used is not established in their CC paper itself, but is asserted based on a reference to an unpublished submission to Geophysical Research Letters. No pre-print of this paper is available, for the simple reason that their paper was rejected at GRL, twice.

    Consequently, this paper is not available in the published literature, and no reliance can be placed on it in the AR4. Use of Wahl and Ammann’s Climatic Change paper as an indirect means of citing the rejected GRL paper is surely a violation of the IPCC principle. The matter concerning the RE and r2 scores is settled in the peer-reviewd literature: Mann et al 1998/99 presents a climate reconstruction that is statistically insignificant in its pre-1450 portions, thereby providing no quantitative basis for ranking the late 20th century to the medieval period.
    [Ross McKitrick (Reviewer's comment ID #: 174-30)]

    Here is Briffa’s response. The results cited here are ones that did not exist in peer reviewed literature at the time that the comment was made. They occur in Ammann and Wahl 2007, which, as we have learned, was not even submitted until August 2006 (AFTER the Review Comment replies) with the date of submission being incorrectly reported in Climatic Change (and still without an erratum). The following paragraphs derive from Ammann’s secret comment that CRU refused to produce.

    Rejected – the text is based on the authors’ interpretation of the current literature (and all papers cited are within current IPCC publication deadline rules). The text gives a balanced view .

    Please note the following –

    The MM05d benchmarking method is based on an entirely different analytical framework than that used by MBH98. MBH used the standard method in climatology of making a random time series based on the low-order AR characteristics of the target time series during the calibration period. here the N. Hemisphere mean. This random process is repeated in Monte Carlo fashion and its skill in replicating the actual target time series is evaluated according to any measure of merit in which the investigator is interested.

    MM’s method instead uses the full-order AR characteristics of one of the proxies used in the reconstruction to create pseudoproxies in a Monte Carlo framework. These are then input into the reconstruction algorithm along with white noise pseudoproxies for all the n-1 remaining proxies. This is, in theory, a statistically meaningful procedure, which asks what kind of apparent skill is available in the reconstruction simply from one proxy’s noise. However this procedure is not general and would need to be repeated for each proxy set to be examined. Also, it would need the subjective choice of which single proxy should be modelled according to its red noise characteristics each time.

    Finally, it does not take into account that some of the verifications seen as “skillful” are associated with very poor/exceedingly poor calibrations, which would be rejected on first principles in real world reconstruction applications. This consideration indicates that the 0.51 threshold cited by MM is actually, at least somewhat, overstated.

    As it happens, I have separately asked Ammann in an email for a reference supporting his claim of “standard climatological practice” in connection with the pubioshed article and he refused to provide it. His article also refers to Supplementary Information, but the SI was unavailable when I searched for it, Ammann has thus far refused to provide to it, and the journal Climatic Change has thus far refused to ask Ammann to provide it. Obviously none of the Climatic Change peer reviewers even bothered to check if the SI even existed.

  38. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 6:53 AM | Permalink

    Here are clauses from the UEA (CRU) manual on FOI:

    27. The UEA should only accept information from third parties in confidence if it is necessary to obtain that information in connection with the exercise of any of its functions and it would not otherwise be provided. In addition, the UEA should not agree to hold information received from third parties “in confidence” which is not confidential in nature. Again, acceptance of any confidentiality provisions must be for good reasons, capable of being justified to the Commissioner. Further details are given in Annex D and in Annex G.

    Annex G 1. When entering into contracts the UEA should refuse to include contractual terms which purport to restrict the disclosure of information held by the UEA and relating to the contract beyond the restrictions permitted by the Act. The UEA cannot “contract out” its obligations under the Act. Unless an exemption provided for under the Act is applicable in relation to any particular information, the UEA will be obliged to disclose that information in response to a request, regardless of the terms of any contract.

    If CRU cannot “contract out” of its FOI obligations by an explicit agreement, clearly it cannot “contract out” of its FOI obligations by an implicit agreement. (I do not agree that there was any implicit agreement between Ammann and CRU that his comments would be confirdential, but, even if such an animal were held to exist against the evidence, the above policy would make the “agreement” ineffective against a FOI request)

  39. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 7:17 AM | Permalink

    Th 5-year limit on procedures is a bother. Time goes by so fast. Is there IPCC provision for the 5 year clock to tick for 5 years AND THEN MORE if a contest is formally filed?

  40. kim
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    35 (Caleb) The next stanza was revealed to me once by an old wise woman. Here it is.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practice to deceive!

    But oh how we improve our style,
    Once we have practiced for a while.
    =======================

  41. Basil
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 7:47 AM | Permalink

    As Steve and others probably know, if you serve as an “expert” in litigation, you have to support your testimony somehow, and will not be able to hide behind confidentiality or client-attorney privilege in refusing to reveal what you relied upon or how you came to your conclusions. About the only way to keep something “secret” is to claim that it is a proprietary trade secret, and even that doesn’t keep the parties on all sides from seeing it; it just gets protected by a nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”).

    Is anything analogous in play here? Wouldn’t there have to be a formal agreement of confidentiality, like an NDA, for release of the information to be an actionable breach of confidentiality? And why would Ammann act only under cover of confidentiality? What is he trying to hide? Are there “trade secrets” in play here the Team doesn’t want the public to know about?

    This is too much like business, and not at all like science, for my taste. That’s not a criticism of business, and sometimes business and science interact and NDA’s are a part of that.

    Whether in litigation, or public policy, if you proffer your opinion as an expert, and expect to be taken seriously, you expose yourself to a higher level of scrutiny and standard of accountability. If you don’t like it, don’t put yourself out there as an expert.

  42. Oriz Johnson
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM | Permalink

    Kim ============= can persuade Clarice, an always carbolic enemy of bureaucratic foibles to illuminate the issue in the American Thinker. I think.

  43. hans kelp
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 9:16 AM | Permalink

    Hey, a few words from a lurker..

    In #11 Patrick M. says

    ” I would guess that the people in question are most likely reading every word here on CA and are taking notes, (in invisible ink of course), on what works on obstructing FOI requests for future reference…”

    Yes, indeed, but using such procedure for future references might seem a bit revealing, wouldn´t it? I think that EJ in #26 has a good point in proposing a central record in which those who simply refuse to disclose are being recorded for their unwillingness to cooperate openly and fairly. Every time a conference was to be held, like the Manhattan Conference last year, an updated record should be made public, including the names of scientists and magazines refusing to cooperate regarding FOI-requests and so on. If such cause of action was legal, things might come to look rather differently in the future because nobody want´s their credibility questioned publicly time and time again. Noone has to be accused of anything criminal in this way. Other circumstances might speak against such an idea, but I don´t know which.

    Best to all
    Hans Kelp

  44. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    #43. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. It doesn’t really matter. Sunshine is still the best remedy.

  45. Craig Loehle
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    Why might one want to keep comments about the IPCC report confidential? 1) making comments about getting rid of the MWP, 2) making personal attacks/snide comments about reviewers, 3) strategizing about how to make the report seem more alarming, 4) breaking rules about citing literature that isn’t really in print yet, 5) other? I can’t think of any good reason.

  46. kim
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

    42 (OJ) Thanks, Oriz; I’ll give it a shot. There are several writers at AT who are au courant with the problems in the whole climate debate, but they haven’t snapped to this one, yet.
    ===========================================

  47. Jim Edwards
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    #45, Craig Loehle

    How about 6) Making life as difficult as possible for “deniers” ?

  48. Smokey
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to request Senator Inhofe’s assistance? A United States senator’s scrutiny would certainly make them sit up straight and pay attention. And a senator can always get media coverage. After all, it’s our tax money that pays for the UN/IPCC.

  49. PeterS
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    As a member of the audience for what is the Greatest Show on Earth… Climate Audit, I would like to throw in a positive heckle.

    Magic depends as much as what we don’t see as on what we do as a way of establishing ‘belief’. Science depends on seeing everything as a way of establishing ‘authenticity’.

    Despite the frequently heard cries from those involved in climatology, the value of the scientific assertions they make (as objects) cannot be measured in terms of ‘belief’ or ‘denial’. That the assertion ‘exists’ cannot be denied – nor does it need to be believed in (which would be like demanding someone believe in, say, a cup of tea). The value of the assertion can only be found in its authenticity.

    Magic works because we are at all times 100 percent certain of the inauthenticity of the magical assertions made (eg, a levitating woman) but – because of what is shown and hidden – we are unable to ‘deny’ the assertion and therefore must ‘believe’ it. Magic, of course, relies on a tried and tested set of hiding actions to arrive at believable, demonstrated assertions – complexity, urgency, circularity, inaccuracy and straightforward obscurity. Whilst it would be somewhat missing-the-point to turn up at a David Blaine event with a FOI request, it would be getting-the-point to do the same at the Met Office or CRU. A refusal to comply can only leave us wondering if they are not attempting the greatest trick of all… to pass magic off as science.

  50. John F. Pittman
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM | Permalink

    They did not acknowledge or respond to the EIR, now did they

    The request

    Thank you for your letter of 19th May 2008. My request remains on the basis of either the FOIA or the EIR and it is not immediately obvious to me how one decides which might apply in advance.

    The response

    FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST (Our Ref: FOI_08-31)

    Your request for information received on 27 May 2008 has now been considered and it is, unfortunately, not possible to meet your request.

    In accordance with s.17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below:

    As far as I can tell Palmer did not address both. Since they are both laws (regs), shouldn’t both be addressed? I do not think this is minor, since the public good is to

    disseminate to the widest extent possible

    .

    It is necessary to ensure that any natural and legal person has a right of access to environmental information held by or for public authorities without his having to state an interest.

    (9) It is also necessary that public authorities make available and disseminate environmental information to the general public to the widest extent possible, in particular by using information and communication technologies. The future development of these technologies should be taken into account in the reporting on, and reviewing of, this Directive

    (12) Environmental information which is physically held by other bodies on behalf of public authorities should also fall within the scope of this Directive.

    (13) Environmental information should be made available to applicants as soon as possible and within a reasonable time and having regard to any timescale specified by the applicant.

    http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st03/st03667-re02en02.pdf

    Don’t know about UK EU law, but in the US 2 laws are 2 laws. I think a complaint that only one was addressed would be in order. After all in the US, a person would be subject to both. Cannot imagine UK is different unless it is specifically stated.

  51. Pete F
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 5:31 PM | Permalink

    John P,

    By saying “..either the FOIA or the EIR..” it allowed the University to decide which to respond to because of the “either/or”. If it had said “and” they would have had to respond to both…

    A second request under EIR is probably needed to get a response.

    One could even get twisted by suggesting that the “either/or” made the request ambiguous and thus perhaps not even requiring a response and that if it goes further, their lawyers are ready to pull such an argument out of the hat if “needed”.

    BTW, I’m no lawyer, so take this as speculation on my part

    Steve: The appropriate law is not a matter of choice on either the part of CRU or the petitioner, but is theoretically inherent in the data. CRU has the obligation to determine the correct legislation. If you feel that they’ve decided incorrectly, you could appeal. But I’m not sure that the differences in the legislation would be relevant to any of the obstruction issues faced so far.

  52. Henry
    Posted Jun 21, 2008 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    So it is easy enough. Appeal against the refusal to the Information Commissioner, showing that (a) the IPCC expected comments to be open and archived so the two individuals should have had the same expectation and (b) the comments were used (at least in part) and so were not kept confidential.

  53. Nylo
    Posted Jun 22, 2008 at 3:34 AM | Permalink

    Posibly the e-mail exchanges contained one part of academic discussion which was used and could be provided without many inconveniences, but also another part more embarrasing which would show unscientific behaviour and political influences or rule-breaking activities of some kind (because science by itself is not subject to confidentiality). And Brifa may be unable to release one without also showing the other part. Therefore a refusal of showing anything arises.

    The answer from David Palmer worries me more. It basically says that they need to “protect the openness and confidentiality of academic intercourse prior to publication” so that this kind of cooperation “can continue and inform scientific research and debate”. This clearly means for me that, in those e-mail exchanges, information of unpublished articles was used, and what is worse, they want that kind of behaviour to continue in the future. This means that from now on, we cannot trust that everything IPCC publishes comes from peer-reviewed scientific papers, be they right or wrong.

    Steve: They would be obliged to redact portions of an exchange and show the relevant portions.

  54. John F. Pittman
    Posted Jun 22, 2008 at 4:25 AM | Permalink

    Steve’s comment to 51 said

    If you feel that they’ve decided incorrectly, you could appeal.

    From the Regs:

    >(12) Environmental information which is physically held by other bodies on behalf of public authorities should also fall within the scope of this Directive.

    From David Holland:

    Please provide a copy of all such responses.
    Any such responses described in 1 and 2 above are clearly “written expert and government review comments” as defined in “Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports” in the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

    3. Please also supply any emails or other documents from IPCC contributing author Caspar Ammann or the Journal Climatic Change that discuss any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process.

    From regs:

    27. The UEA should only accept information from third parties in confidence if it is necessary to obtain that information in connection with the exercise of any of its functions and it would not otherwise be provided. In addition, the UEA should not agree to hold information received from third parties “in confidence” which is not confidential in nature. Again, acceptance of any confidentiality provisions must be for good reasons, capable of being justified to the Commissioner. Further details are given in Annex D and in Annex G.

    From Steve:

    Here is Briffa’s response. The results cited here are ones that did not exist in peer reviewed literature at the time that the comment was made. They occur in Ammann and Wahl 2007, which, as we have learned, was not even submitted until August 2006 (AFTER the Review Comment replies) with the date of submission being incorrectly reported in Climatic Change (and still without an erratum). The following paragraphs derive from Ammann’s secret comment that CRU refused to produce.

    I guess the difficulty I see is the claim of confidentiality. It is held. Some of it has been discussed publicly per IPCC and now at least some has been published. Perhaps the confidential part should be challenged. The ‘it is necessary to obtain that information in connection with the exercise of any of its functions and it would not otherwise be provided’ seems to be unsupportable by Mr. Palmer.

    capable of being justified to the Commissioner.

    Making an appeal to the Commissioner to justify the confidentiality might help or provide information as to how the FOI should be worded.

  55. James
    Posted Jun 22, 2008 at 6:02 AM | Permalink

    Just seems to me that the IPCC has something to hide. I would also be curious how much money some of these scientists are getting paid by governments worldwide. What would happen to their money if global warming, as presented, isn’t true? Evaporate in a hurry. As was said, it’s the cover-up that’s the problem here.

  56. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 22, 2008 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

    #54. OF course, the issue is confidentiality and whether Ammann’s comment on IPCC chapter 6 to an IPCC lead author employed by CRU, sent by email and not through the regular system, had any explicit or implicit confidentiality attached to it and second, even if CRU had made such an undertaking – which I very much doubt – whether CRU could legally contract out of its FOI obligations.

    Before readers assume that I’ve overlooked something here, readers should assume 1) that I’ve read the available policy and regulations 2) that I’ve read a LOT of case law on breach of confidence and 3) that I’ve thought about it. I liked reading case law.

    I think that DAvid Holland is doing an excellent job in presenting his requests to the various agencies and I’m happy to do what I can here to place a little sunshine on the process.

  57. Colin Davidson
    Posted Jun 22, 2008 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    The gift of the Enlightenment was that Science is different from Art. Science is about objective truth, not about opinion or politics. If the data is not available for scrutiny, then it is not Science. If the method is not available for scrutiny, it is not Science. Instead it is Art. So all that those refusing to provide data or method are doing is establishing their credentials as Artists.
    I don’t think we give them enough credit for that. As Science it doesn’t rate, but for all I know it may well be great Art, practised by Great Artists.

  58. PhilH
    Posted Jun 22, 2008 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    Of course they are hiding something. Suppose that Amman e-mailed Briffa and said something
    like this: “McIntyre is right, dadgumnit, but I think we can cover by saying the following ‘….
    …….’ Those guys at the IPCC never check any of this stuff anyway, as long as it follows
    the script.”

    If that comes out, the whole house of cards collapses.

  59. EJ
    Posted Jun 22, 2008 at 10:58 PM | Permalink

    Let’s make sure we document and archive any such dubious dodges.

  60. MJW
    Posted Jun 23, 2008 at 1:27 AM | Permalink

    Isn’t PhilH clever? What a fool David Holland is to waste his time requesting this information. Obviously he expects Ammann to spill the beans. That’s not going to happen, so why doesn’t Holland just give up and leave Climate Science to the experts? After all, they’re so much smarter that we are, and have only our best interests in mind.

  61. kim
    Posted Jun 23, 2008 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

    Steve, would you consider subnitting a short essay on this stonewalling to American Thinker? Send it to editor@americanthinker.com and tell them clarice sent you.
    =========================================

  62. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 23, 2008 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

    61. This is really David Holland’s story right now. He might want to.

  63. kim
    Posted Jun 23, 2008 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    62 (Steve) David, please? Clarice is Clarice Feldman and she has street cred over there.
    ============================================

  64. Tom C
    Posted Jun 23, 2008 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    #56 – Steve

    I liked reading case law.

    You also like reverse-engineering abstruse statistical analyses. For a guy with weird hobbies you seem pretty normal.

  65. David Holland
    Posted Jun 23, 2008 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    Kim and everyone,

    Thank you for your interest in this matter. I have been following your comments but not resonding because I am spending so much time drafting and redrafting responses (I am not too good at this and wish I could pay my lawyer who just dictates exocets into a dictaphone in a single unbroken pass liberally sprinkled with case law.) Several FOIA/EIR requests are moving inexorably to the appeal stage which Doug Keenan has told me is well backlogged. When we are at that stage I will have the time to do as Kim suggests and write a piece.

    Tony Brown, are you the TB of C*d*n*a P*r*s* ? if so I’ll send you an email.

  66. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jun 24, 2008 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    Tom #64

    What’s weird about reading case law or reverse-engineering abstruse statistical analyses?

  67. EJ
    Posted Jun 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

    If you never have studied case law, it can be facinating following an interesting question of law. To be able to follow a case however, you have learn how to navigate in the law library, that is the hardest part.

  68. Corey S.
    Posted Jan 22, 2009 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

    Steve & David,

    I came across the “Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second-Order Draft” for all chapters. It does appear that they have been taken down from the original website. I am not sure if you have them now or not, but, if you would like copies, I would be happy to supply them to you.

    If you do have them now, is there a way that I can make them available for the public?

    Regards,

    Corey

  69. David Holland
    Posted Jan 22, 2009 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    Re #68

    Try this

  70. Corey S.
    Posted Jan 23, 2009 at 8:27 AM | Permalink

    David,

    Thank you. I see that they are posted somewhere. I appreciate it.

    Regards,

    Corey

3 Trackbacks

  1. [...] en transparant Er zijn al diverse pogingen gedaan door McIntyre en onder andere David Holland om e-mail correspondentie tussen IPCC-auteurs vrij te krijgen, [...]

  2. [...] may decide you have something to hide, which is exactly what Steve McIntyre is investigating here, here, here and here.  The organizations concerned are supporters of warming theory – so why not [...]

  3. By THE IPCC – A FLAWED ORGANISATION | on May 29, 2011 at 9:00 AM

    [...] are defending them. (This was followed up on 20th June 2008 as Fortress Met Office, Fortress CRU andFortress CRU #2:Confidential Agent Ammann, and on 23 Jun 2008 Fortress Met Office continued)   (Steve McIntyre, Climate [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,192 other followers

%d bloggers like this: