Some institutions gather climate data for purposes other than climate research. For example, the military machine might be interested in conditions at airports as they affect aircraft load ability etc.

There is no compelling reason to make some military data public, so it is reasonable to include exceptions to full and open release criteria.

The problem is more one of where to draw the line. An institution such as CRU at East Anglia is clearly out of step. But what of NASA, who would have both civil and military data. Are they obliged to reveal significant observational differences? I suggest not, though it might be nice if they did.

GRANT INFORMATION for Phil Jones (University of East Anglia or UEA)

Additional information on all of these can be found by searching for “jones” the website at: http://www.osti.gov/oberabstracts/ Keep in mind there is a different Phil Jones at LANL

Register Number: ER94157
Project Term: 12/01/1993 – 11/30/1994
Funding not listed

Register Number: ER95144
Project Term: 03/01/1995 – 02/28/1996
Funding not listed

Register Number: ER96167
Project Term: 12/01/1994 – 11/30/1997
Funding not listed

Register Number: ER62601
BER Division: Climate Change Research Division
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2006 $178 k KP120101
FY 2005 $175 k KP120101
FY 2004 $173 k KP120101
FY 2003 $180 k KP120101
FY 2002 $180 k KP120101
FY 2001 $180 k KP120101
FY 2000 $180 k KP120101
FY 1999 $174 k KP120101
FY 1998 $170 k KP120101

NOTE: The grant listed above is DE-FG02-98ER62601

Register Number: ER60397
BER Division: Climate Change Research Division
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2003 $0 k KP120101
FY 2002 $0 k KP120101
FY 2001 $0 k KP120101
FY 2000 $0 k KP120101
FY 1999 $-3 k KP120101
FY 1998 $0 k KP120101
FY 1997 $200 k KP120101
FY 1996 $198 k KP120101
FY 1995 $192 k KP120101

Register Number: ER62601
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2006 $177 k KP120101
FY 2005 $174 k KP120101
FY 2004 $172 k KP120101
FY 2003 $180 k KP120101

Register Number: ER62601
BER Division: Climate Change Research Division
Research Area: CCPP-CCRI
Awarded Amount to Date and B&R Code :
FY 2010 $0 k
FY 2009 $0 k
FY 2008 $199 k KP1206
FY 2007 $0 k
Project Term: 05/01/2007 – 04/30/2010

While the whole UK FOI action against CRU was an interesting experiment in how the UK treats FOI requests and embarrassed CRU for not having data traceability, it did really resolve getting the data. To get resolution to this, you have to follow the money. The amount of government funding to climate scientists is staggering.

Phil Jones (University of East Anglia or UEA) has been funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Biological & Environmental Research (BER) since 1993; often with Tom Wigley. [Note, that there is also another Phil Jones at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) who receive funding for climate change research; this is not the same Phil Jones (UEA).] Partial details of the grants and funding are provided at the bottom of this post and greater details on the grants are on the webpages cited [note that they have been deleted to try to get past the spam filter]. This includes the DOE grant that Steve M. kept asking about: DE-FG02-98ER62601.

As Phil Jones (UEA) has been funded by these grants he is subject to the data sharing policy of the DOE granting office and division. The DOE BER Climate Change Research Division Climate Change Prediction Program at http://www.sc.doe.gov/ober/CCRD/model.html only states: “Funding of projects by the program is contingent on adherence to the BER data sharing policy.”

A much more detailed description of Climate Change Research Division (note the CCRD in the weblink) data sharing policy can be found at http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CCRD/per.html where among other things it states:

Program Data Policy
The program considers all data collected using program funds, all results of any analysis or synthesis of information using program funds, and all model algorithms and codes developed with program funding to be “program data”. Open sharing of all program data among researchers (and with the interested public) is critical to advancing the program’s mission.
Specific terms of the program’s data sharing policy are: (1) following publication of research results, a copy of underlying data and a clear description of the method(s) of data analysis must be provided to any requester in a timely way; (2) following publication of modeling methods or results, a copy of model code, parameter values, and/or any input dataset(s) must be provided to any requester in a timely way; and (3) recognition of program data sources, either through co-authorship or acknowledgments within publications and presentations, is required.
The program assumes that costs for sharing data are nominal and are built into each grant application or field work proposal. In cases where costs of sharing are not nominal, the burden of costs will be assumed by the requester. The Program Manager should be informed whenever a requester is expected to pay for the costs of obtaining program data, whenever a data request is thought to be unreasonable, and whenever requested program data is undelivered.

Funding of projects by the program is contingent on adherence to this data sharing policy.

Several things pop out in this policy:

“Open sharing of all program data among researchers (and with the interested public) is critical to advancing the program’s mission”

“a copy of underlying data and a clear description of the method(s) of data analysis must be provided to any requester in a timely way”

“following publication of modeling methods or results, a copy of model code, parameter values, and/or any input dataset(s) must be provided to any requester in a timely way;”

“The program assumes that costs for sharing data are nominal and are built into each grant application”

This says nothing about sharing with “academics only”. Sharing with the “interested public” is clearly specified. As Phil Jones (UEA) has published multiple research and modeling results, I’m sure a polite request to Dr. Jones (UEA) from a member of the “interested public” for a copy of underlying data and a clear description of the method(s) of data analysis and a copy of model code, parameter values, and/or any input dataset(s) that are the results of DOE funding would be provided to any requester in a timely way as is required by the DOE data sharing policy. After all, the US taxpayers paid for this work and the interested public should be able to get this info.

If the requested information is “undelivered” then a polite request to the head of Climate Change Prediction Program:

Dr. Anjuli Bamzai
Climate and Environmental Sciences Division, SC-23.1
Department of Energy, GTN Bldg.
1000 Independence Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20585-1290
Phone: (301) 903-0294
Fax: (301) 903-8519
Email: anjuli.bamzai@science.doe.gov

would probably be in order. Perhaps a query about the quality assurance standards for these grants, the traceability of data requirements for these grants, and whether continued funding would be provided to principal investigators who do not comply with data requests could also be made.

If that does work, then a FOIA request to DOE regarding data availability, quality assurance standards, and the traceability of the data might get results. The DOE takes FOIA requests seriously. FOIA worked when Steve M. asked for info from Santer at the DOE lab.

If there are problems with this, then DOE would be open to FOIA requests as to why their Principal Investigators are not living up to data sharing agreements; why the DOE is not enforcing data sharing agreements; why DOE is funding individuals who do not abide by the DOE data sharing agreements; why the data gathered under the DOE program are not traceable; and if the data are not traceable, then what good are the data.

http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/715125?elq=b4186143f023409f9edd8f3319dc53dd

The scientists who expend the blood, sweat and tears to unearth the remnants of humanity’s past deserve first crack at describing and analyzing them. But there should be clear limits on this period of exclusivity. Otherwise, the self-correcting aspect of science is impeded: outside researchers can neither reproduce the discovery team’s findings nor test new hypotheses.

In 2005 the National Science Foundation took steps toward setting limits, requiring grant applicants to include a plan for making specimens and data collected using NSF money available to other researchers within a specified time frame. But paleoanthropologists assert that nothing has really changed.

Hmmm… this sounds familiar.

Ultimately, the adoption of open-access practices will depend in large part on paleoanthropologists themselves and the institutions that store human fossils—most of which originate outside the U.S.—doing the right thing. But the NSF, which currently considers failure to make data accessible just one factor in deciding whether to fund a researcher again, should take a firmer stance on the issue and reject without exception those repeat applicants who do not follow the access rules.

Lots of words and rules, which are meaningless unless they are enforced.

As for the public display of these fragments of our shared heritage, surely taxpayers, who finance much of this research, deserve an occasional glimpse of them.

I think that the public display of the climate data and code would be nice.

Jason

Actually some climate scientists did say Gore had some minor details wrong, but that his message was on the money, without any evidence, of course.