Many thanks for the link:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/itregs/ICT+Contingency+Plan+-+Top+Level

In 21 pages the “Plan” tells us what happens in various scenarios of threat/damage to
the computer/communications systems at the University of East Anglia.

However, there isn’t a single word about why the “Strategy Development Manager” who was
a co-author of the plan would be responding to any FOI/ERI requests to the Climate Research
Unit.

The “Plan” involves securing and/or restoring data and system funtionanlity, not the
dissemination of information held within the system in compliance with FOI/ERI laws.

If Raymond Scott was also the designated FOI officer for UEA, why isn’t he using that
as part of his title when responding to FOI requests on behalf of his employer ?

More ???

Raymond Scott involved here:

UEA – ICT Contingency Plan – Top Level Plan
Document Control Information
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/itregs/ICT+Contingency+Plan+-+Top+Level

Now when a marketing agent calls for “Mrs Berple” I ask them to hold while I fetch her, as she is out in the garden. Every few minutes I pick up the line to assure them she is on her way, while proving a new excuse for the delay. It is amazing how long folks can be kept dangling.

The clincher is to then cut yourself off mid sentence while explaining the delay. Few will believe you cut yourself off on purpose so they will try back. And of course as you explain, Mrs. Berple was at hand, but went back to the garden when the line was dropped. Please hold while I fetch her again.

Don’t we have the same situation with the CRU? They have written study after study saying “the answer is 42″. When asked to “show their work” they have failed. Until they show their work, shouldn’t that be the grade that their papers receive? Failed.

Isn’t that the grade they would give their students that “failed to show their work”? Why should professors not have to show their work when they require that their students show theirs? Does one suddenly acquire super human skills when made a professor such that mistakes are impossible and your work is held above question?

By simply withholding the data it remains impossible for anyone to prove the associated studies wrong. New studies with new data may contradict the earlier studies, but these new studies can always be argued against without any firm conclusion possible.

The bigger question is why anyone in science would trust any study in which the data and methods were hidden? It should be automatic in science that papers that are submitted without the supporting data cannot pass peer review. Otherwise, how could the reviewer have check the results for accuracy?

The same holds after a paper is published. If the data and methods are not provided, how can anyone recreate the results? If the results have not been recreated and validated, how can anyone trust the paper?

Isn’t this discussion really about scientific standard – or in point of fact lack of standards in science? Standards are the very basis of trusted, reliable results in industry. It seems that science as practiced by academics has a long ways to go to catch up.

A listing of the Freedom of Information requests received by the University of East
Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and their status from 1 January 2005 until 22 December
2009 can be found at:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/25032/response/66822/attach/2/Response%20letter%20199%20100121.pdf

Please note: This information comes from CRU, However the introductory
paragraphs specifically refer to the Freedom of Information Act but make no mention
of requests made exclusively under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). The
requestor did not include any EIR-based requests, so he got exactly what he asked for.

Please also note the title of the University of East Anglia employee who sent
the FOI response letter out to the requestor:

Raymond Scott – Strategy Development Manager – University of East Anglia

Strategy Development ? What was that about ?

There seems to be no requests pending for an update.