As observed by the late John Daly, the main trees studied in Tasmania grow in the wet, cold, mountainous west, where there are few (really nil) reliable long term temperature records. The calibration was done with stations some 150 km or more east, on the hotter, drier lowlands.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm see his Exhibit 8, though the whole article is relevant.

Unfortunately, though we can core more trees and erect more weather stations, we cannot calibrate to past temperature in a way that avoids serious questions without answers. Ed Cook’s studies on Huon Pine predate AR4, and I can find no relevant Villalba paper later than AR4.

Does anyone know how this IPCC claim can be supported?

As Phil says, “The agreements that we’re talking about are not really confidentiality agreements that you’re talking about.”

*************
#856
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=806

date: Wed Aug 5 16:58:21 2009
from: Phil Jones
subject: My earlier comments
to: REDACTED

Hi Matt,
My comments were tongue in cheek! The agreements that we’re talking about are not really confidentiality agreements that you’re talking about. Lots are unwritten agreements that we make scientist to scientist. Where there are written agreements they are signed between me (or previous Director’s
of CRU) with other academic institutions, which were not with their central administration (but again a sub part). CRU doesn’t initiate these, but if the other side wants it and it will help us do some work then we go ahead and sign. There is never any obligation on CRU or UEA. They are generally
about agreeing to work together on something.
The agreements Dave is talking about are ones that relate to us not making climate data available to third parties, which we have got from a National Met Service.
FOI is causing us a lot of problems in CRU and even more for Dave, as he has to respond to them all.
It would be good if UEA went along with any other Universities who might be lobbying to remove academic research activities from FOI. FOI is having an
impact on my research productivity. I also write references for people leaving CRU, students and others. If I have to write a poor one, I make sure I get the truth to the recipient in a phone call. I’m also much less helpful responding to members of the public who email CRU regularly than I was 2-3 years ago.
I’ve seen some of what I considered private and frank emails appear on websites. Issue here is blogsites have allowed these climate change deniers to find one another around the world.
Cheers
Phil

From: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)”
To: “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)” , “Colam-French Jonathan Mr
(ISD)” , “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” ,
REDACTED”Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)”
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 15:32:05 +0100
Subject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69]
Thread-Topic: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69]
Thread-Index: AcoVvf08n/gEgJXORxOdPEoiA9w3TgAFFk3wAABnriAAAPaKIAAAOeMg
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2009 14:32:07.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[82575B10:01CA15D9]
Folks,
In response to one of Phil’s earlier emails regarding any policies regarding entering into confidentiality agreements etc, I sent a query to REE to determine what relevant
information they might have… and received the below response to which I have responded as you can see…

This does present something of a ‘issue’ in terms of drafting a response and dealing with any potential follow up request/query regarding our practices in this regard. I
wonder if whether said policy was in force at the time the agreements were entered into would be a way around this… the request is for current policies clearly…. I will
enquire further with Matt Hume….

Cheers, Dave
___________________________________________________________________________________

From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:23 PM
To: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD)
Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD)
Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69]
Matt,
Thanks very much for this… You have given me a bit of a conundrum on how to respond but we do at least have something to work with….
What policy are you actually quoting from and is it publicly available? As the request was for the entire policy, is there any issue with making the policy publicly available? If the policy in regards confidentiality agreements is within a larger document with unrelated material, I am happy to quote but I do think we will need to provide a proper citation…

Cheers, Dave
REDACTED_______________________________________________________________________________

REDACTEDFrom: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD)
REDACTEDSent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:16 PM
REDACTEDTo: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
REDACTEDCc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD)
REDACTEDSubject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69]
REDACTEDHi Dave,

REDACTEDWe all just had a very good laugh at Phil’s comment “We do sometime ignore the
REDACTEDRegistry advice”… If this is going to have the kind of publicity that you suggest,
REDACTEDI would prefer if you do not quote ANY of his answer to question 1.

REDACTEDThe UEA actually has a very strict policy on entering into confidentiality
REDACTEDagreements, however as Phil so blithely admits, a handful of academics take it upon
REDACTEDthemselves to foul things up!

REDACTEDAs you will note from points 1 & 2 of our policy; no UEA employee, except members of
REDACTEDour office, has the right to sign anything on behalf of the university – the problem
REDACTEDis that funders/other parties can be sneaky by sending the agreement in the name of
REDACTEDthe academic.

REDACTEDOur policy is:-
REDACTEDSomeone from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team should approve and sign all
REDACTEDConfidentiality Agreements:
REDACTEDonly our staff have the legal authority to sign agreements on behalf of the
REDACTEDUniversity
REDACTEDall agreements should be between the University of East Anglia and the party
REDACTEDrequesting the agreement (not an individual academic or school)
REDACTEDwe will negotiate with the other party on any issues within the document that may be
REDACTEDcontentious
REDACTEDby doing this we will ensure you the best protection of your IP rights
REDACTED(In special circumstances, authorisation may be obtained from the Commercialisation
REDACTED& Enterprise Team allowing you to sign the agreement yourself. Such authorisation
REDACTEDmust always be obtained in advance, will only be valid for a specific instance, and
REDACTEDthe standard university agreement must be used without amendment – unless we have
REDACTEDauthorised an amendment)

REDACTEDIn all cases, a copy of the fully signed confidentiality agreement must be retained
REDACTEDin our office.

REDACTEDFYI – we are currently finishing off the final touches to our new intranet pages -
REDACTEDthere will be a page on CDA’s with this info on it.

REDACTEDAlso, I am away on holiday next week (10th -14th), so if you do any more info on our
REDACTEDpolicy regarding agreements etc, please contact Anne Donaldson, one of our
REDACTEDCommercialisation Managers ([1]REDACTED).

REDACTEDThanks
REDACTEDMatt.

REDACTED_________________________________________________________________________

REDACTEDFrom: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
REDACTEDSent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 2:47 PM
REDACTEDTo: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD)
REDACTEDCc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD)
REDACTEDSubject: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69]
REDACTEDImportance: High
REDACTEDMatt,
REDACTEDPlease note Phil Jones’ response to question 1 below – would REE have anything
REDACTEDthat would be relevant to this request?

REDACTEDA bit of context – in response to a rejection of a request for data, we have
REDACTEDreceived over 50 requests for agreements, data and a combination thereof in
REDACTEDrelation to data sets that CRU maintains/holds. This is pretty high profile
REDACTEDand has been noted in blogs in the Guardian and Telegraph as well as in the
REDACTEDsource of all of this (see: [2]http://www.climateaudit.org). Be assure that
REDACTEDwhatever we state in response to this request is likely to be on the web,
REDACTEDshared and very public within hours of sending….

REDACTEDWe have a request from another individual exactly the same as below so there
REDACTEDwill be multiple recipients of the answer we give.

REDACTEDOur deadline for a response is 21 August but as I’m on hols commencing 17
REDACTEDAugust, the ‘effective’ deadline is 14 August.

REDACTEDCheers, Dave
REDACTED _________________________________________________________________________

REDACTEDFrom: Phil Jones [[3]REDACTEDREDACTED]
REDACTEDSent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:15 PM
REDACTEDTo: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD); Ogden Annie Ms
REDACTED(MAC); Mee Andrew Mr (CSED)
REDACTEDCc: Whitehead Steve Mr (FIN)
REDACTEDSubject: Re: FW: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69]
REDACTEDDave,
REDACTED A few responses inline
REDACTEDCheers
REDACTEDPhil
REDACTEDAt 11:52 05/08/2009, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote:

REDACTEDFolks,
REDACTEDThe next ‘other’ request relating the the CRU agreements & data.

REDACTEDThe first part of the query will be answered in line with the answer given to
REDACTEDother requesters for the agreements.

REDACTEDIn regards the second part, I will need some assistance as noted below

REDACTED. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities
REDACTEDregarding entering into confidentiality agreements. REDACTEDns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” />
REDACTEDSteve, do we have any contracting policy on this? Phil – anything with CRU on
REDACTEDresponsibilities regarding entering agreements on behalf of CRU? I don’t think
REDACTEDwe wish to state that we don’t have any policies or procedures in place, but
REDACTEDI’m not sure what to actually put here…
REDACTEDI don’t think there is anything – if there is I’ve never seen it. People in
REDACTEDCRU (not just me) enter into
REDACTEDagreements about data and/or writing papers and getting involved in projects.
REDACTEDUEA signs research
REDACTEDcontracts for us. UEA employees do the work, but UEA administers the grant.
REDACTEDThe various
REDACTEDagreements that UEA signs may say things about data access, but it will vary
REDACTEDdepending on
REDACTEDthe funding body. Some are more stringent than others. The Registry goes
REDACTEDthrough these.
REDACTEDThey mostly help the researchers by not letting ourselves sign away any
REDACTEDrights and IPR. We
REDACTEDdo sometime ignore the Registry advice, preferring to fall back on the verbal
REDACTEDagreements we
REDACTEDhave with the funders (their project officer). If we ever have a problem, we
REDACTEDprobably wouldn’t
REDACTEDwork with them again. This has happened with some scientists I have
REDACTEDcollaborated with in the past.

REDACTED. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee responsibilities
REDACTEDregarding the preservation of written agreements.
REDACTEDAh, records management rears its head.We have a general statement on our
REDACTEDwebsite regarding our responsibilities for RM but we do lack any overarching
REDACTEDrecords retention schedule or policy Phil, does CRU have anything in-house?
REDACTEDCRU has nothing in this regard.

REDACTED. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees entering into verbal
REDACTEDagreements.
REDACTEDSee question 1; same issue here although more likely to have a nil response
REDACTEDhere consequences of that?
REDACTED As said in the 2 pager we’re working on, we put some of the agreements in
REDACTEDthe letters we
REDACTEDwrote to Met Services requesting data (some of which we paid for).
REDACTEDThere has been a lot of time and effort gone into making these contacts. It
REDACTEDseems as
REDACTEDthough this counts for nothing.
REDACTEDAgain – unlikely to be anything. People agree things with other academics at
REDACTEDmeetings.
REDACTEDThis is how science works.

REDACTED. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI requests.
REDACTEDWe have web guidance that can be referred to, and a brochure that I distribute
REDACTEDthat could go here. and a statement regarding the training on offer
REDACTEDI’m not sure you want to go down this route!

REDACTEDCheers, Dave

REDACTED _________________________________________________________________________

REDACTEDFrom: steven mosher [ [4]REDACTEDREDACTED]
REDACTEDSent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:16 PM
REDACTEDTo: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
REDACTEDSubject: FOI/EIR request

Dear Mr. Palmer:

REDACTEDPursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations, I hereby request
REDACTEDthe following information in respect to any confidentiality agreements
REDACTEDaffecting CRUTEM station data involving station data in NIGERIA,
REDACTEDNETHERLANDS, NORWAY, NEPAL,NAURU
REDACTED. the date of such agreement;
REDACTED. the parties to the agreement;
REDACTED. a copy of that part of the agreement that prevents further
REDACTEDtransmission
REDACTEDof the data to non-academics or others
REDACTED. a copy of the entire
REDACTEDagreement

In addition, I hereby request the following

REDACTEDinformation:

1. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee

REDACTEDresponsibilities regarding entering into confidentiality
REDACTEDagreements.

2. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employee

REDACTEDresponsibilities regarding the preservation of written
REDACTEDagreements.

3. A copy of policies and procedures regarding employees

REDACTEDentering into verbal
REDACTEDagreements.

4. A copy of instructions to staff regarding compliance with FOI

REDACTEDrequests.

I am requesting this information as part of my academic research.

REDACTEDThank you for your attention,
REDACTEDSteven M. Mosher

The position of Nature and other defenders of CRU as justified due to elusive confidentiality agreements entails that IPCC participants who rely on these supposed agreements have failed to live up to these UNFCCC obligations.

Quite interesting to contrast Nature’s position on CRU data with their recently reported statements on the bird flu data (see here for the BBC news report).

Apparently the US gov are demanding certain details of a recent study into the ability of bird flu to spread through ferrets to humans be redacted in case it could be used by terrorists; Nature and Science are taking a stand, insisting that researchers MUST have access to the redacted data.

I haven’t looked at the bird flu aspect in any depth and have no strong view on it, but it is astonishing to see the difference between this approach and their handling of the CRU data access, where they were all too quick to defend refusal of access to data by researchers.

I wonder if they are learning from their past errors, or if they are just showing staggering and brazen hypocrisy?

2. Many countries, including the UK, charge for meteorological data (this I know from firsthand experience in many countries). That explains why some countries insisted on confidentiality agreements; the fact that the CRU could not find these agreements reinforces my first point.

This is true. I know from experience that GISS charges for detailed terrain maps, for example (you can get the coarse maps for free, however). GISS’ terrain data is not expensive (I don’t recall the actual cost since the coarse data was sufficient for my needs at the time), and readily obtained from their website.

What should have been done, however, was supply all the data not covered by such agreements, then point requesters to each of the sources for data covered by any agreements. As you note, the fact that said agreements couldn’t even be found indicates their lack of professionalism as well.

Mark

Thus providing us all with a real and object lesson about allowing power to concentrate. Extremists capture the levers of power and the rest of us pay a big price.

This is the central reason why the IPCC should be disbanded. Its very existence is an irresistible plum for extremists and a continuing danger to the rest of us.

snip

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) of the U.S. Department of Energy has been heavily involved in global warming research since the early 1980s and began their sponsorship of Phil Jones and CRU at that time. Station data and documentation for the early studies(TR022 and TR027) on 2873 stations (NDP-020) was made available around 1990. Since then, there have been several iterations of the dataset, including an increase in the number of stations from 2873 to 5129. However, to my knowledge, there has been no updating of the archive on station documentation. Limited updating of the archive of station data was done in 1994 but again, to my knowledge, nothing in the last decade – thus almost nothing since IPCC came on the scene and transformed the politics of the issue.

This leaves it open that the DOE got something for their money before 1994. On the original interest in CO2 and the carbon cycle, from around 1978, see Freeman Dyson’s memories of Oak Ridge that I brought to CA’s attention three months ago. The work in Carter and Reagan’s day was surely on the level. As Steve implies, only as the IPCC came on the scene did things go wrong.