(a) copy the data to his files;

(b) “value-add” to the data;

(c) incorporate the data into sets like global without specific acknowledgement of source;

(e) pass the data to third parties;

(f) pass the data to third parties without caveats about the adjustments he made;

(g) omit to confirm with the originators that his adjustements were acceptable, before distributing them;

(d) make assumptions as to copyright that might in hindsight be illegal?

Ford – just give it up

I disagree. He seems intent on totally exhausting his credibility here. I say we let him.

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

The scanned copy that Pasteur1 notes is not the temperature data requested it is a completely separate published paper.

No one wants paper copies of data. The transcription to digital format is time consuming and prone to errors. But ANY data that has been transcribed is not RAW – errors may have been corrected on-the-fly errors may have been introduced.

In meteorology data is still in the form of paper copies at the point of source == RAW.

When Jones started on his project in the 80s there must have been a lot of paper copies to transcribe (Jones says he spent many years doing this!).

My, frankly toungue-in-cheek entry just sets out a possible scenario. I do not know how muck of the pre 80s stuff was on paper and how much was provided on computer tape.

Obviously once the dta is on tape then a single reel of tape is all that is required to hold all the vast quantities of corrected/errored data. Provided these have been periodically wound through a machine, provided the tape readers are still available, provided the oxide is not shedding, provided the acetate(?) has not degraded, provided you can afford someone to nurse the tape through the machines, then copies of this almost raw data can be sent with NMC approvals to others. IT IS NOT HOWEVER THE RAW DATA

Indeed I can’t recall any instance on this blog where Mr. McIntyre suggested he wanted paper. Raw data? Yes. But when he was searching directories across the web for data files, I hardly think he was looking for paper. Nor did he ever complain when he received digital data.

As for your suggestion that it might be illegal for Jones to scan a report that he co-authored at CRU for delivery to the UK NERC and US DOE, I have one question. Huh?

Apparently it wasn’t illegal and it wasn’t much of a burden to scan the report. Three (3) days after the request was made by Mr. McIntyre this document was created.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/pdf/Farmer-1989-NERC.pdf

“The first four rows of Table 3 show the cost of producing master copies of microfiche. The cost of producing master copies of microfiche is $114 per fiche, $1.54 per image, or $333.11 per 216 page volume.”

600000 pages are equiv to 2778 volumes of 216 pages
2778 volumes at $333.11 per volume is $925,305!

The data is all at the NMCs – no data has been eaten. McIntyre has every right to go to the NMC as request copies.
The CRU decided that the data they digitised was adequate for their purpose. Who has the duty to archive this data? Surely it must be the dtat originators? Why retain the same data as the NMCs have preserved?

Funny that you came up with a figure of 600000 pages. That’s exactly how many pages of raw source material a friend of mine maintained for his global almanac.

In the early days, it filled a room full of filing cabinets.

Then it was converted to microfiche form both for ease of storage and to make it sharable.

Later, it was digitized.

All by volunteers.

To thefordprefect, an absurd notion. In the real world, a practical necessity.

If that’s actually the data that needs preserving, then do so. Don’t cry that the dog ate your homework.