Comments on: CRU Refuses Data Once Again

By: Climategate 2 and the FOIA/Mole Incident « Climate Audit

Climategate 2 and the FOIA/Mole Incident « Climate Audit — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:15:56 +0000

[...] specific language about “non-academics”. I immediately (July 24) responded at CA here as follows about this surprising development: This is the first time that we’ve heard that their [...]

By: Revelations of Dr Phil. Chapter 1. « Climate Audit

Revelations of Dr Phil. Chapter 1. « Climate Audit — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 03:12:58 +0000

By: More Untruthfulness from the U of East Anglia « Climate Audit

More Untruthfulness from the U of East Anglia « Climate Audit — Mon, 31 May 2010 15:29:10 +0000

[...] named countries. For example, here is my FOI request for five confidentiality agreements (see here) I hereby make a separate FOI request in in respect to the confidentiality agreement(s) upon which [...]

By: curious

curious — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:39:51 +0000

Pathetic.

Cut and paste from comment in thread above:

“Attn: Mr. David Palmer

Dear Mr. Palmer,
I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involving the following countries: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
1. The date of any applicable confidentiality agreements;
2. The parties to such confidentiality agreement, including the full name of any organization;
3. A copy of the section of the confidentiality agreement that “prevents further transmission to non-academics”; and,
4. A copy of the entire confidentiality agreement.
I am requesting this information for the purposes of academic research.
Thank you very kindly in advance for your attention,”

No mention of data there in what was the generic request. How long does it take to say “there is no agreement in force for any of the countries you list”?

Unless of course it was one of these:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/agreements.pdf

in which case a max. of 4 would need modifying. I hope the ICO is paying attention to the misrepresentation that CRU continue to promote.

By: kim

kim — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:46:22 +0000

Per, this was nailing the lies up on the wall for all to see. Look over there. Can you read?
===============

By: Believers « the Air Vent

Believers « the Air Vent — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:44:16 +0000

[...] July 2009: McIntyre organizes a spam FOI campaign against CRU, asking his supporters to send requests nominating five [...]

By: The Final Straw « Watts Up With That?

The Final Straw « Watts Up With That? — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:17:59 +0000

[...] One request for a subset of the data was fulfilled after some delay. The larger request was denied. By 2009 it became clear to McIntyre that the CRU data had also been shared with Webster. When McIntyre requested the very same data that Webster got from Jones, CRU started again with a [...]

By: The Inquiry — Submissions « The Policy Lass

The Inquiry — Submissions « The Policy Lass — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:15:48 +0000

[...] you actually go to the CRU FOI thread, you can see he practically orchestrates it and the near-manic nature of his participation on that [...]

By: John Norris

John Norris — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 00:40:28 +0000

re this interview:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5968/934/DC1

has this Phil Jones quote:
Q: When did the pressure grow most severe?
P.J.: In July 2009 we received 60 Freedom of Information requests in a few days–each request was for five countries’ worth of data.

Well that nicely misdirects what was actually in the FOI requests.

By: Per Edman

Per Edman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:53:46 +0000

But no, it doesn’t bother me significantly that only one out of the following requests were filled:

FOI_09-44 (Refused), FOI_09-63 (Refused), FOI_09-64 (Refused), FOI_09-65 (Refused), FOI_09-71 (Released), FOI_09-117 (Pending), FOI_09-128 (Pending).

Which ones of these came from McI?

The response to 09-71 would also be interesting, but that request seems to understand the concepts of privacy…

/ Per