CRU refused my FOI request for CRU data stating that:
Regulation 12(5)(f) applies because the information requested was received by the University on terms that prevent further transmission to non-academics
I asked to see the precise language of the underlying agreements because I very much doubted that agreements specifically prohibited “further transmission to non-academics”. If there were such a term in an agreement, it seemed far more likely that the term would be for “academic use” or something like that, and, given that my interest was scholarly rather than commercial, I doubted that the language of any applicable agreement would be applicable.
CRU has only managed to locate three documents pertaining to their agreements with NMSs: an application to Spain and letters from Norway and Bahrain, all from 1993-4. They also include a letter from CRU to the Met Office and, inexplicably, a copy of a current webpage from NERC governing Met Office data.
In their discussion of data availability, they state (in contorted logic) that:
In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties. We included such statements as standard from the 1980s, as that is what many NMSs requested.
Let’s examine the agreements. If the effect of these and other agreements is to prohibit them from supplying me the data, it is under language that has far more broad reaching consequences than merely preventing the delivery of data to me.
The British Territories Agreement
Here is the language from the CRU request to the UK Met Office regarding information about British Territories. It asks for data in connection with the construction of climatological normals; it makes no mention of the construction of a gridded temperature index nor the construction of a merged land-sea index. It says that the data would be used “unauthorized for any project” – which would obviously include its use in CRUTEM and HadCRU unless such authorization had been obtained. It doesn’t prohibit delivery of the data to “non-academics”; it prevents delivery of the data to “third parties” -which includes all the recipients of Advance 10K data, those people who downloaded cruwlda2 or newcrustnsall and any other academic.
If this language is representative of agreements with NMSs, then it prohibits the delivery of the data to CDIAC at the US Department of Energy (who published versions in the mid1980s and placed a version online in the early 1990s.) For that matter, it would prohibit the delivery of NMS data to the Met Office for use in HadCRU as the Met Office is a “third party” to CRU.
The Norway Correspondence
The Norway correspondence is also from 1993-1994 (pre WNO Resolution 40) and also is about 1961-1990 climatological normals, rather than temperature data. But viewing this as an example of the “lost” agreements, as CRU invites us to do, it says that CRU must not give the data “to a third party”. It doesn’t say “non-academic” – it says “third party.” If CRU seriously holds that this clause is in effect, then, as above, it prevents them from delivering data to the Advance-10K academics, to CDIAC and to the UK Met Office for use in HadCRU.
The Bahrain Correspondence
The language may well not constitute a binding agreement. But let’s stipulate that it does. Again it doesn’t refer to “non-academics”; it refers to “third parties”, including academics, CDIAC and the Met Office.
The Spanish Correspondence
As others have noted, the Spanish correspondence contains no prohibition on delivery to third parties – it merely asks for citation. I suppose that CRU might argue that there was an implied term of the agreement regarding further transmission of the data – but on the available evidence, such implied term would extend to all “third parties” and not merely to Climate Audit readers.
Climate Audit 
23 Comments
Agree with your characterization of any restrictions on distribution as being absolute, and not subject to the whim of the data holder.
If anything can be implied from the Spanish agreement, it’s a waiver of any condition on use of the requested information.
They asked Hulme to sign his request, agreeing to their proposed terms, they also asked him to list his planned use.
Hulme DIDN’T sign the agreement, and failed to provide ANY planned purpose.
The Spanish opted to give him all of the data, anyway. That smells like waiver of conditions of use.
This will no doubt lead to claims of verbal waivers being in place for academics.
Steve, it is not fair the way you use that “logic” thingy to hoist them by their own petards (yes I’m quoting Shakespeare incorrectly again, but I’m at a climate skeptics workshop in Missouri at the hotel computer…)
Re: Craig Loehle (#3)
Isn’t Missouri known as the “show me” state?
.
As in, “I’m from Missouri. Show me.”
Roger Pielke Jr has also put in an FOI request. He is an academic so they can’t reject him on the ‘not an academic basis’.
You all should find pertinent leads about the IACGEC and others’ data policies and data warehousing policies in this article:
Space Policy
Volume 16, Issue 1, 29 February 2000, Pages 45-59
European perspectives on trends in public sector Earth observation data policies
Ray Harris and Nicola Olby
—————————————————-
Note, for one, the European concern for “re-investment” as support for clamming up on the science.
What about transmission to 4th , 5th, 6th, … parties?
What if all the data providers are invited to the party?
Well, if they won’t show me the data, how about showing me who won’t let them show me the data?
.
Re: Ryan O (#9),
perfect.
Re: Ryan O (#9),
This should tie in nicely with my request (see this comment at Lucia’s). We ought to get a list of organizations where we don’t need to ask as well as a list of ones where we do
Re: FrancisT (#18), I saw that. Very nice.
Re: FrancisT (#18),
Is not there some confusion here about obtaining, upon request the raw data, that the CRU sources currently provide to CRU and the original raw data (before the 1980s when the lose of these records occurred) that were provided originally and then adjusted by CRU. I suspect that CRU could show “value added” after the 1980s and thus they might have a legitimate data series from that time forward.
Of course, since we have the satellite series for that period, I would have to say that UAH rules – or maybe RSS rules.
“It says that the data would be used “unauthorized for any project” – which would obviously include its use in CRUTEM and HadCRU unless such authorization had been obtained.”
Missing a ‘not’ somewhere?
It looks like the Met’s data quality control procedures have missed the detail about having access to data. Maybe next month’s Met data will only have UK data. On the bright side, it will be the global dataset which is of the highest quality.
Slightly off topic, here is a FoI request to the Met Office to see if they have assessed the quality control procedures used in creating CRUTEM.
“We have always concluded that the dataset construction processes are adequately documented in the peer reviewed literature.”
So their dataset construction processes are adequately documented, but they have lost the raw data and don’t know exactly what they did to get their “value added” version – not a caveat i’ve noticed on studies using the data. Climate Science – it’s an ongoing joke isn’t it ? You really couldn’t make half this stuff up.
Does this explain the sudden withdrawal of access on July 31? That is, when prompted to check the actual agreements, CRU realised what they were currently doing was in breach?
The L.A. police department possibly has a vacancy for your skills, after Inspector Columbo left them in 2003.
Steve, can anything be done when an FOI request is rejected for untrue reasons? Now that you have evidence no restriction exists toward “non-academics,” is there an FOI police that you can report this too? I would think that for FOI to have any teeth, some entity would have to be in charge of enforcing it.
Re: Ron Cram (#17), Ron – this is probably the place to start if you feel it is worth it:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/environmental_information_regulation.aspx
The response to my request:
Dear Mr. Mosher
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST
(Our Ref: FOI_09-69)
Further to your request for information received on 24 July 2009, I have consulted relevant units within the University and, pursuant to my obligations under section 16 of the Act to provide advice and guidance, I am writing to request clarification of several aspects of your request. Apologies for the delay in responding to you on this matter, but as you may know, we have received a large number of requests for information under the Act recently and it is taking some time to deal with each request.
In your request, you have asked for a copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality agreements and verbal agreements, and for a copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities regarding the preservation of written agreements.
The University does not have one, overarching policy or procedure regarding entering into confidentiality or verbal agreements. Each division within the University has policies and procedures specific to their area of work . This also applies to the preservation of written agreements. In order to answer your question for all of the University, it is highly likely that we would exceed the statutory appropriate limit of 18 person hours to locate, retrieve & review the requested information.
In order to avoid this situation, I would therefore ask you to clarify what aspect of the University’s work would be the focus of your request for such policies and procedures. For example, given the nature of the other components of your request, are you simply interested in policies in relation to research activities?
Please note that the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will be ‘suspended’ until such time as we receive clarification of your request. Once that is received, the ‘clock’ will recommence, your request considered, and you will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party. You will be informed of any exemptions or references to third parties.
I trust this is to your satisfaction and look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely
David Palmer
Information Policy & Compliance Manager
University of East Anglia
I received the same response as mosh.
Antagonish (with apologies to Hughes Mearns)
I get requests from god knows where,
For missing files that are not there,
They were not there again today,
I wish that you would go away,
Although I know this can’t be proved,
I’m sure we had them when we moved,
We packed them well, but in our haste,
We put them in a box marked ‘waste’
We do not have a single datum,
I told you lads, the doggy ate ‘em.
Secrecy agreements too,
A thieving monkey from the zoo?
Don’t ask me now, don’t ask me later,
There’s just no sign of that raw data
Use Met data that’s been padded,
That’s data that’s had value added,
I put the files upon the stair,
I looked last week, they were not there.
I couldn’t find them come what may,
Maybe they just blew away
3 Trackbacks
[…] The “Confidentiality Agreements” […]
[…] this article recognizes the key aspect of what Steve McIntyre has spent years now working on HERE as an example, access to the data and code behind research projects. Others may agree with NAS recommendations […]
[…] “small document” is online at CRU here. It was reported at CA on August 11, 2009 here, here and here (among […]