Willis writes in with latest FOI refusal from CRU, saying that they are unable to provide a list of the sites used in HadCRU3.
As y’all may recall, I wrote back regarding the FOI request I had made for Phil Jones’ list of stations used for HadCRUT3. Unlike Steve M., I was not looking for 17 year old data, but current data. Here’s what I received today …
Information Services Directorate
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ England
Telephone 01603 456161
Direct Dial
01603 593523
Fax 01603 591010
Email foi@uea.ac.ukMr. Willis Eschenbach
HI 96743 USA
20 April 2007Dear Mr. Eschenbach
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST
(FOI_07-04)Further to your email of 14 April 2007 in which you re-stated your request to see
“a list of stations used by Jones et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 dataset… I am asking for:
1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and
2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.”In your note you also requested “the name and WMO number of each site and the location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service)”,
I have contacted Dr. Jones and can update you on our efforts to resolve this matter.
We cannot produce a simple list with this format and with the information you described in your note of 14 April. Firstly, we do not have a list consisting solely of the sites we currently use. Our list is larger, as it includes data not used due to incomplete reference periods, for example. Additionally, even if we were able to create such a list we would not be able to link the sites with sources of data. The station database has evolved over time and the Climate Research Unit was not able to keep multiple versions of it as stations were added, amended and deleted. This was a consequence of a lack of data storage in the 1980s and early 1990s compared to what we have at our disposal currently. It is also likely that quite a few stations consist of a mixture of sources.
I have also been informed that, as the GHCN and NCAR are merely databases, the ultimate source of all data is the respective NMS in the country where the station is located. Even GHCN and NCAR can’t say with precision where they got their data from as the data comes not only from each NMS, but also comes from scientists in each reporting country.
In short, we simply don’t have what you are requesting. The only true source would be the NMS for each reporting country. We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but without sources. This would include locations, names and lengths of record, although the latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series.
This is, in effect, our final attempt to resolve this matter informally. If this response is not to your satisfaction, I will initiate the second stage of our internal complaint process and will advise you of progress and outcome as appropriate. For your information, the complaint process is within our Code of Practice and can be found at:
Click to access 1.2750!uea_manual_draft_04b.pdf
Yours sincerely
David Palmer
Information Policy Officer
University of East Anglia
Man, these guys are hysterical. They are currently producing and updating the HadCRUT3 temperature database every month, but they say they “do not have a list consisting solely of the sites we currently use” … so … do they just pick sites at random every month to update the database?
I mean, when I was a kid on the cattle ranch, the cowboys used to say, “Partner, you can piss on my boots … but you can’t convince me it’s raining” …
But then further along in the letter, they offer to send a list consisting solely of the sites they currently use … go figure.
Of course, they won’t say where the data is coming from, claiming that ummm, well, the GHCN and NCAR folks don’t know either, and it’s all just too very hard, or something of that nature.
So, first I’ll take them up on their offer of the list of stations, then I’ll deal with their pathetic excuses …
This is better than the circus … the clowns are so much funnier.
w.
UPDATE: BACKGROUND
Here is a collation of Willis’ requests dating back to Sep 28, 2006, which show an interesting evolution. The original request was merely for data as used at CRU.
1. Sep. 28, 2006 Request
Willis’ original FOI request here asked for:
a list of the meteorological stations used in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data for those stations.
2. Feb, 10, 2007 East Anglia Reply
The reply regused to provide the data on the grounds that it was available elsewhere.
Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below.
The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page within US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.phpThis page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global dataset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site.
Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dynamics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/tn404/
Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous problems).They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station number counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data.
In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below
3. March 8, 2007 2nd Iteration of FOI Request
Willis re-stated his request for a list of the sites and where they were available here .
You are making the rather curious claim that because the data “appears” to be out on the web somewhere, there is no need for Dr. Jones to reveal which stations were actually used. The claim is even more baffling since you say that the original data used by CRU is available at the GHCN web site, and then follow that with the statement that some of the GHCN data originally came from CRU. Which is the case? Did CRU get the data from GHCN, or did GHCN get the data from CRU?…
I am again requesting that you provide:
1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and
2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.
4. 2nd East Anglia Refusal, Apr 12, 2006
The reply to the 2nd iteration of the FOI request is here
In regards the gridded network’ stations, I have been informed that the Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed principally from data available on the two websites identified in my letter of 12 March 2007. Our estimate is that more than 98% of the CRU data are on these sites.
The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of data CRU has collected from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pass on the raw station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU web site. These NMS-supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the database, but we have to respect their wishes and therefore this information would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorological Organization has a list of all NMSs.
5. Third Iteration of FOI Request, Apr 13
On the basis that the original refusal was because the data was already available on the web, Willis responded here to the above evasions by requesting a list of the stations together with an identification of where on the web the station data could be downloaded:
Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), it is not possible to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does not apply – I still cannot access the data.
I don’t understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a simple list of the sites and where each site’s data is located. Pointing at two huge piles of data and saying, in effect, “The data is in there somewhere” does not help at all.
To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of the stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this:
WMO#_____Name_____Source
58457____HangZhou___NCAR
58659____WenZhou____NCAR
59316____ShanTou____GHCN
57516____ChongQing___NMSetc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 temperature data.
That is the information requested, and it is not available “on non-UEA websites”, or anywhere else that I have been able to find.
Climate Audit 
53 Comments
So, I’m new to this. How do they conduct peer review if noone can even identify the source data?
Think of the phrase “gloss over.”
Mark
So, they are basic’ly saying: Ask the Chinese.
The letters from the Information Policy Officer to Steve and Willis should be published in one of the most-read journals. These flippant responses should be seen by more people than just us on this website.
The climate research community should be aware that the data they are using is “unverified” and “unarchived”. Everytime the data is cited in some paper, it should contain a big asterix saying “Source: University of East Anglia/Hadley Centre – Original data has not been archived and is, consequently, not available.”
I don’t know how it can be done but I thought I’d make the comment.
Hi Willis, I can see how I think they are obfuscating this and how it might help tp be specific not get all stations. Given this is a database, a lot depends on how the data model. So where they say:
That is technically correct as they would need to write an SQL query to extract such a list, I presume. That is:
And of course they could write a query to get sites ‘currently’ used if you asked specifically for that.
I all swings on the meaning of ‘have’. Do I have it if its in a database?
What is the meaning of is. Petty obstruction really.
If you go to the link in the letter to Willis about hte appeal process, it contains the following about Records Management:
OK, who was responsible at UEA for record management?
This would not stand up in court. They are saying that because some station data is ‘contaminated’ they can’t give you station data. Because they have more data than they use they can’t give you the data they do use. Because they don’t have all data used in a ‘current’ regeneration of the HADCRU, they can’t give you the site used in an incremental April 07 update of HADCRU.
This seems to be more Judge Judy level parsing of words than a competence issue, however the competence issue might be involved too. Suggesting lack of competence might be a lever to finally get it out of them.
Excellent, Willis! You provide a great example of how to use an institution’s administrative process (in this case, an FOI process) to get institutions to comply with their own policies. You succeeded in getting UEA to commit to sending part of the data you requested.
You indicated you intend to deal with the excuses for not supplying the rest of the data. If you choose to use the second stage of UEA complaint process, it would take the matter to “a whole ‘nother level”.
It appears the Information Policy Officer may doing as well as can be expected, given this is an initial request and that he must work with whatever Dr. Jones gives him. In any case, stage two generally requires a different reviewer, usually the Director of Information Services. Stage two elevates the matter so that UEA can be expected to scrutinize Dr. Jones’ rationale more closely. This is a more formal review that will put substantial pressure on Dr. Jones to comply with UEA policy.
If Stage Two does not resolve the matter to your satisfaction, you can request a Stage Three review to the FOIA Complains Adjudication Board. The Board consists of the Academic Registrar, Director of Communications, and a representative from one of the faculties that sits on the Information Framework Project Board.
Now that would be a sight to see…the FOIA Complains Adjudication Board reviewing Dr. Jones.
Here is a relevant excerpt from UAE Code of Practice for Responding to Requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Date: 22 November 2004.
I read this to mean that there is no coherent time series, but they merely append new data as it becomes available (in some unknown way).
And this is the thread of evidence on which hangs the most fundmental styilised fact underpinning the theory of AGW and hence the increasingly intrusive (and potentially costly) global policy initiatives.
I become more scared for the future of my children with each passing day.
Excellent.
US lawyers do not care who and for what to sue. Kennet Starr to the mind. As of today, every letter, and especially every E-mail and web-post are indestructible documents, fully acknowledgeable by courts.
It would be fun to see in near future law suits from agro business, insurance companies, utilities, etc. for damages and lost revenue due to corrupted weather data and predictions, not to mention carbon tax and cap-and-trade schemes.
Litigation society has its advantages too.
I’ve collated excerpts from Willis’ correspondence in the thread above together with links to the threads where the correspondence was originally posted. It seems to me that the most refusal refutes the reason for the first refusal. Willis’ original request was for the station data used in HadCRUT3. They refused because they said that the information was available elsewhere on non-UEA websites, a reason available for FOI refusals.
The most recent refusal agrees that they are unable to identify locations of such information and, in effect, that the reason for refusing to provide station data for HAdCRU3 was invalid.
Willis, I think that it’s time for the 2nd stage of the process to be initiated under the policies enunciated by Palmer – but that it should be initiated for the original request – which is for the data as used. This is the underlying objective.
Here’s the latest salvo in the battle of the paper cannons …
To be continued in our next episode …
w.
I am looking forward to a headline in credible newspapers saying: “Claimed 0.6 Deg C Warming Last Century Demonstrated to be a Hoax”
Followed by: “Researchers examining the recently released data from HadCRU centre’s Dr Phil Jones have found that the series showing warming last century has been based on cherry picked data, and adjustments made by Dr Jones that have never been subjected to independent peer review or audit.
“An alternative analysis of the 20th century data done by ……….has shown that over the century there were fluctuations of plus …. and minus …., but that overall the temperature trend for the century was actually flat. This astounding conclusion …..
“It turned out that downward adjustments made by Dr Jones for data in the early part of the century, and upward adjustments made for data in the last part of the 20th Century account for nearly all of the 0.6 degree warming claimed by Dr Jones. The new work confirms work done by other workers such as Dr Warwick Hughes and the late John Daly (and others…) that threw doubt on Dr Jones’ series.
“The new series was made possible by persistent efforts of a few Climate Auditers to secure access to the data series and analysis carried out by Dr Jones. Dr Jones denied access to the data and analysis for over x years, in total contravention of data archiving policies of funding agencies and journals which published Dr Jones’ papers.
“It emerges that Dr Jones failed to properly account for the well known Urban Heat Island effect. It is well known that urban connurbations develop warmer micro-climates than surrounding rural areas due to numerous factors relating to the intensity of human activity. Some of the temperature increases shown by Dr Jones in fact are caused by temperature recording stations that were once in rural locations on the outskirts of cities now being affected by the Urban Heat Island effect as urban development surrounded the weather stations.
“Other concerns identified by researchers include lack of adjustment for the well-known Russian phenomenon where remote communities in Siberia and Northern Russia received more resources if temperatures were below certain thresholds. It also revealed that Dr Jones had not adjusted the record for the closure of 30 Siberian weather stations (some of the coldest in the world) after the collapse of the Soviet Union, thus falsely giving the impression of warming in that part of the world.
“The revealing of the 20th Century warming hoax follows the earlier debunking of the Hockey Stick by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. The Hockey Stick was a chart prepared by Dr Michael Mann and colleagues that purported to show that 20th century warming was far in excess of temperatures for the previous millenium. This chart was the centrepiece for the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report released in 2001, and developed iconic status in the global warming debate. McIntyre and McKitrick were able to show that the Hockey Stick chart was based on cherry picked use of data, failed to comply with accepted standards in statistics and signal processing, and ignored compelling evidence for the Medieval Warm Period where historical records demonstrate that it was just as warm, if not warmer, then than the 20th century.
“Presidential aspirant Al Gore, when asked about the revelation and the devastating rebuttal that it represents for his film An Inconvenient Truth said that he had based his work on the published scientific consensus that prevailed at the time. It is in the nature of science to ‘move on’ when new information becomes available.”
The term peer-review refers to two confusingly related processes.
1) Prior to publication, a journal will solicit comments from other scientists in the field. Depending on the stature of the journal, passing the hurdles at this stage may require only that the author demonstrate a working knowledge of the field. More exclusive journals will also filter work for novelty and importance. Strictly used, this is what it means for a journal to be ‘peer-reviewed’: though the editorial staff might be professional editors; the material published is given review by a peer of the author; i.e., by other scientists.
2) People also the term peer-review to describe the evolution of research. Another group will read the published papers in a field and reproduce the work… either to build upon it or to create a reference. This is a very different process. Two effects tend to discourage the reproduction of results:
a) the research is no longer novel. There is a brief window in which journals will accept papers that reiterate already published proof
b) it is very common in biology & chemistry to repeat a process a thousand times and publish the one instance in which your procedure yielded clean, clear results. The less extreme case of this is to get noisy data 999 times, and clean data once. Labs attempting to replication the results are unlikely to spend as much time to get the “golden” example.
However quite a bit of #2 nonetheless takes place; especially for important work. Witness for instance that disgraced Bell Labs researcher (Jan Hendrik Schon). A group at IBM spent a year attempting to replicate his work before checking his papers for outright fraud. His work was big–important. It was published in Science (8 publications found to be fraudulent) and Nature (5 publications found to be fradulent). And yet he managed to get a couple dozen papers pass peer-review.
Peer-review in the sense of #1 is not a mark of accuracy. Its mark of research having been performed using methods standard to the field. Its a mark of relevance and importance.
Go, Willis, go !
Fantastic stuff- you couldn’t make these evasions up. It is a delight to see this stuff published freely for all to see.
per
Ad National Met Services data – it’s sometimes funny. On their Czech pages they wrote that record datasets throughout the years are to be obtained only as paid data. However, some of those are for download through NOAA and some through, e.g., Pogoda Rossii…go figure.
Usually, I like to spend my spare time playing games on the internet, but this GW debate is the funniest show I have seen since “All in the Family” or “The Cosby Show”. The sad part is that my state governor (SC) has gotten on the CO2 bandwagon. Previous comments as to legal suit or economic loss are not understated. As the environmental engineer for local industry for the past 22 years, I know first hand how expensive regulations are. A common problem, seen in my field, is that the poorer the definition, in terms of science or law, the more it typically costs to apply, if compliance can even be sucessful! Several states (U.S.A.) are considering listing CO2 as a pollutant. The states would then theoretically (legally?!!) be able to charge per ton under the Title V CAAA. Since our state depends on tax revenues from our coastal tourist business, the state has entered into the insurance arena to guarentee contined insurance availability in spite of this assumed GW. In fact, the governor thinks the state needs to be in this arena due to the likely sea level rise from GW.
For the FOI…go for it. In the US, there is a legal requirement to comply. Even though I know of no prosecutions, it is an illegal act here in the states not to correctly respond to FOI requests. Perhaps someone should just call the local prosecuter for some real fun.
Willis #12, Your latest response to Mr. Palmer is a model of patience and rationality. Your willingness to continue working informally and not to raise a formal appeal (stage two of complaint process) is another sign of your patience and rationality.
However, as you are aware, preservation on one’s appeals rights is also important. Mr. Palmer’s letter states:
Mr Palmer has made an administrative decision, and has informed you of your appeal rights. Mr Palmer did not state how long you have to exercise your appeal right. If Mr Palmer treats your response as dissatisfaction with his decision and he initiates the second stage of the complaint process, then your appeal right is preserved. However, if Mr Palmer does not respond that he has initiated the second stage, and instead tries to work with you informally, then it would be prudent to confirm with Mr Palmer that your right to a second stage appeal remains intact and will not expire while you and he work informally to resolve the situation.
My guess is that Mr Palmer will initiate the second stage complaint process because he has done as much as practicable in getting Dr Jones to respond to your FOI request. It is cases like this that the second stage was meant to handle.
As a 20yr in the field operational meteorologist with an extreme interest in surface temperature measurement who follows your site closely and consider myself well read on the subject, may I say thankyou for your hard work and determination,whatever the data may show.
The data set is being used to measure the non-measureable imho. At least to the degree of resolution the “team” and “consensus” tells us they can. I mean, my gosh even the agreed upon value of about 0.7C (+/- 0.2C) seems trivial when looking at paleoclimate data. Anyways, I digress…GREAT WORK GUYS! Keep it up!
Re: 1 and Re: 14. The point here is the “attitude”. Does not seem to be very honest. A researcher is asking another researcher some basic data, with no added value at all, in order to confirm, progress or whatever on the subject. The first researcher responds vaguely, just excuses, and basically saying ‘I will not cooperate”. As a layman on science that sounds to me intriguing (being polite). Ps., keep it up
r.
Sorry, I should have written ‘the 2nd researcher responds…’
As several here have noted, we seem to be moving closer and closer to a situation where the regulations put in place by the warmers will cause measurable costs to industry and others, which may result in litigation to resolve issues like the validity of the surface temperature record.
I have no confidence that the courts will get the results right. It may be possible to show in court that the data have been cherry-picked and do not prove anything. Or maybe not. Lawyers always say that going to court is just a roll of the dice.
Willis’s efforts are terrific, and the slow crumbling of Phil Jones’ edifice is satisfying to watch, but the outcome is far from certain. I think only a prolonged lack of further warming that can be shown by the MSU and Radiosonde data will turn attitudes around.
Can anyone comment on the data used by Gore in his film which shows 2005 as ‘the hottest year ever’. What was his source for this, and has anyone connected with this site made any data requests or intends to?
John Hekman suggests two sources for *accurately* measuring global temperatures, MSU and Radiosonde. I have looked up the meaning of the first on your handy glossary of abreviations but the second is new to me.
1: Can anyone (John?) tell me about the second?
2: Are they generally recognised as accurate instruments for this particular task? (As compared to, say, tree rings and ice-cores.)
3: Are there any other instruments for that purpose that command general respect amongst the experts on this site?
4: Finally, what do they tell us (in general terms) concerning this controversy?
Sorry, for so many questions but I am a non-scientific follower, lagging far behind, I’m afraid, in this discussion. Heeeeeeeelp!
David, a radiosonde is a type of probe containing meteorological instruments that transmits data that can be recorded remotely.
They are most commonly used by being lifted up through the atmosphere by a weather balloon – data sets compiled from parts of this data are often referred to as the “Balloon Record”.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde for more.
Willis:
I wonder if you are being too specific with your requests.
The UK act states:
Access UK Act here.
The key here would seem to be the UK courts’ definition of the word “information” as described in the Act. My understanding of the US / California Acts is they require a gov’t agency to provide a copy of most documents in their possession – but not to compile any new forms or documents [other than a letter stating: here’s your docs, we don’t have it, or you can’t have it because…] You letters appear to be very sensible requests for UEA to prepare a new list that they claim not to possess, currently. As logical as your request might seem, I’d wager they have no duty to fulfill your requests.
The US Act (5 USC ⥠552), for example, states:
The emphasis is on access to individually identified records, not information available to the agency. You have asked for a list ID’ing all the stations used; if they happen to possess two lists each ID’ing half the stations, for example, neither would seem to be discoverable under your request.
Perhaps you should cast a wider net, by asking for “any document or other record, whether in print, audio, video, or other electronic data storage format” that identifies “one or more” of the stations used in the reconstruction of interest. In boolean terms, use more ‘ors’ and fewer ‘ands’ to ID your available documents. After you’ve forced them to ID the docs in their possession, then you can request what you want them to cough up.
Re #23 Al Gore may have used NCDC’s report which shows 2005 as the warmest year. Double-click on the upper image to get the enlarged view of annual anomalies.
Junk Science maintains a nice webpage of temperature trends shown by various surface collections, satellites and radiosondes.
HadCRUT3 is now reporting its March, 2007 anomaly, shown here . It shows sideways movement in global temperature for the last six years, like the satellites.
#26 is right! We had a case in my state where a local newspaper wanted access to some records. The product of that case (and others?)was an agency cannot issue something they don’t have, nor can they, necessarily, tell you what they do have, or what you need to do to get it. I was part of a mistrial where a judge told the prosecutors how they would have to present some evidence, and within an half-hour, the mistrial was declared.
Though, perhaps Jim Edwards should weigh in on the following: add “readily available, and if not, when can the available documents be reasonably expected?” I did not see time as a constraint in Jim’s link to the UK Act.
I would underscore that for the US Act
“promptly” has meaning, and have something in there that would make a continued refusal of available materials not prompt by your and their records. Perhaps “promptly” has some binding constraint for UK, as would “reasonable”. Though Jim may point out that for the US “prompt” or “reasonable” may be anything a lawyer can convince a judge or jury, and does not apply in UK.
28
I wish I knew enough about UK law to comment definitively. Common sense and public policy implications tell me that the UK Act’s use of the term “information” should be interpreted similarly to the US term “record” – and not expansively to mean all information known by the agency.
If an expansive definition of the term “information” was in force in the UK it would have absurd implications. Any person could request any number of customized work products be produced to their specifications and the agency would have to comply. Government agencies could not function under this financial and administrative burden [maybe not a bad thing…]. The expansive interpretation also makes it near impossible to objectively ascertain whether the agency has “information” in its possession.
The more restrictive “records” interpretation of the UK term “information” avoids all of these problems. Agencies either have records or they don’t. They are cheap and easy to distribute to the public. Gov’t agencies can send out a photocopy and get back to work. Common law courts look at these public policy implications when interpreting statutory language.
Even within the UK Act text there is evidence that “information” exists within or concurrent to “records”, as the Act contemplates destruction of “records” as a means to attempt to prevent the release of “information.”
Note that no law is broken unless and until a proper request for information is received. This looks like a nice loophole. If someone requests information with incorrect specificity, the holder could destroy the records while a new request was being formulated w/o incurring any penalty under this particular Act.
I may be reading Palmer’s latest reply with a bit too much cynicism. It seems to me that he is saying that since Phil Jones uses whatever data selection algorithm suits his fancy from month to month and he “adjusts” the data as he sees fit, that it is therefore not possible to provide the data which Willis has requested.
Willis is doing a great job of allowing Palmer to expose himself. He is so desparately clutching at straws that he is incable of maintaining a consistent argument.
#30, Brooks Hurd
I disagree. As I stated on another thread some time ago, Mr. Palmer is a bureaucrat, completely oblivious of an academic debate in climatology. His job is an administrative one; he’s a content-neutral firewall. He knows Dr. Jones does not want to deal with this, but has no interest in whether Willis or Jones is ‘right’. He is simply taking this letter to Dr. Jones and asking “Do we currently have this data in the form in which it is requested ? If so, does it exist in the same form elsewhere so we have a basis to deny his request ?”
I am not criticizing Willis, but I think all that is being “exposed” is that government bureaucrats can be less than helpful to the general public, even if they are being paid to help the public get information. This shouldn’t be that great a surprise to anybody who’s been to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles.
#31 “Mr. Palmer is a bureaucrat, completely oblivious of an academic debate in climatology. His job is an administrative one; he’s a content-neutral firewall.”
This is a big assumption. It is also possible that Mr. Palmer is a true believer in The Cause and knows precisely the importance of the data request. Is it possible to know if any other scientists have requested the same data? Would a deluge of requests from scientists for the same data change the situation? Would a prominent Wall Street Journal report on the inability to verify and repeat the foundational studies of AGW change opinions?
#32 Reid:
Look at his job title – “Information Policy Officer” He gets paid to do this for the whole University, including the finance dept, admissions dept, facilities maintenance, etc.
He may, in fact, be a casual believer in AGW in the same way so many other UK subjects are, but he gets paid to write “I’m sorry” letters so UEA won’t be embarrassed by public disclosure, or be burdened by a nuisance law. There’s no evidence he even realizes the significance of Willis’ request vis-a-vis AGW. Isn’t there a ‘consensus’ of thousands of scientists with millions of papers that prove AGW beyond a shadow of a doubt ? [sarcasm, if you didn’t catch it…] Why would Palmer believe exposure of problems with Jones’s single paper would undermine the cause ? He’s probably just as mathematically and scientifically illiterate as most people.
There is no benefit in assuming Mr. Palmer is part of some alarmist conspiracy.
The difference between the requests of Steve / Willis and the requests of other scientists is that Dr. Jones doesn’t want to share his data and methods with people who are going to poke holes in his work –> that’s why he’s passed it on to the Information Services Directorate, to let them stonewall for him. Team scientists would never have to interact with Mr. Palmer, Jones would likely hand over whatever they asked for with a wink and a smile.
1000 FOI requests to Mr. Palmer for the same information would probably have no effect on UEA’s decision whether to go out of its way to disclose things that it believes it is not required to under the FOI Act. Mr. Palmer would likely print out 1000 copies of his “sorry we don’t have it” letter and happily imagine how helpful he’s being by keeping Dr. Jones from having to deal with 1000 requests. This allows Dr. Jones to keep producing his valuable work and bring honor to the University.
Steve because you’ve seen their long list of reasons to not publish sources you could write them up and post them as new
research techniques for their students.
Well gee Prof, we don’t know where the data came from,…
Another interpretation of Mr. Palmer’s actions is that he would like to get the request out of his office and
up to the Director of Information Services, but cannot unless Willis files a formal complaint under Stage Two.
Re #33
Jim Edwards your argument is convincing. I retract my comment #32. It is a waste of good cyber real estate.
So let it be written. So let it be done.
#36 Reid
…if only Dr. Jones were as honest and graceful as you are.
Re #33
Jim Edwards, I agree with your view of the typical bureaucratic handling of these issues and other insights on this issue that you have posted here. In my judgment one will probably not succeed even when reasonable legal interpretations might be in one’s favor. I cannot get giddy about some possible revelation that might occur on pursuance of this course of action.
The main purpose in initiating such actions for my intentions would be to determine whether the holders of such data feel they have a slam dunk case for the conclusions that they have derived from the data in question and that the data is of unquestioning quality. An adamant refusal by direct or indirect means would indicate to me that the data could be interpreted with alternative conclusions. That is what I see going on this case, although, it should not be construed as hard evidence for the validity of the data or conclusions drawn from it, one way or the other.
What perhaps gives false hope in these cases are peoples’ viewing of instances where, for example, environmentalists groups have sued or forced the revealing of information with the ACLU or Ralph Nader’s army of lawyers involved. I think what confuses the issue is that anything that questions or even appears to question the AGW consensus is simply not a sufficiently popular position to get anything other than a bureaucratic response.
It’s good to ask the questions but probably unrealistic to expect answers forthcoming given the current lopsided consensus. I would be particularly wary of those that would give a dismissal with the proverbial pat on the head in their responses — as brought to mind by the recent North reaction. That says, in effect, that they really see no reason for a reply and that the requestors are really not of any particular consequence to them.
#38, Ken Fritsch
One would think that if you could find a sympathetic reporter at a major daily newspaper to run a “Scientists won’t release unchecked data, even after FOIA request” story, there might be some public shame that would come into play to elicit release of hidden information. In this environment, as you say, the opposite would probably occur. Look how quickly Barton requests for Mann to truthfully explain his work became turned into “Evil puppets of oil companies bullying scientists.”
The ACLU has done some great work, but I wish they could lose the hard left-wing bias. They are alledgedly defenders of the Bill of Rights, but somehow rights to free association and religion go out the window when they’re hunting Boy Scouts all across America. Boy Scouts are, after all, a quasi-military organization. The likelihood of the ACLU supporting a U.S. FOIA request to allow Team data to be audited is quite low, don’t you agree ?
Re: #39
Agree. People like Steve M and Willis E are pretty much on their own. That does not, however, imply that their efforts are wasted. Readers of this blog learn a lot about the system (and prevailing prejudices) from the responses that they receive and share with us.
Additionally, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that if these people who are withholding data (including the TR scientists) for whatever publicly announced reasons had a slam dunk case they would be showing off their data. That is a tendency that most scientists/engineers, with whom I have been familiar, cannot resist.
We have the added benefit at this blog in that Steve M and others do not simply go after critical data, they attempt to find data on their own and fill in some of the missing blanks. Such efforts help inform of the reliability of the published data and conclusions drawn from it.
There should be little doubt that this information officer is alert to the sensitivity of this controversy. I’d be careful.
==================================================
The beat goes on … the buck gets passed …
I’ll keep you posted,
w.
Willis, I’d suggest that you qualify (2) to ensure that it says the data “as used” HadCRUT3 and that you specify availability to mean that the data is available in a downloadable form, and, if there is no such availability, that the data itself be provided.
Someone up above suggested that this had to be a mid management call, looks like they were spot on.
Clarification request to David Palmer:
We’ll see …
w.
Willis, #42, Thank you for pursuing this request and achieving an UEA administrative decision that will review Dr. Jones’s responses to your request. You have made your case. The administrative record should show repeated, unsatisfactory responses by Dr. Jones.
Your case is strong. Moreover, UEA’s policy is to fully comply with the Freedom of Information Act and to place in the public domain as much information about its activities as is practicable. Here is a quote from the Code of Practice cited in Mr. Palmer’s letter.
The latest salvo in the FOI skirmish …
Comments on where to go from here gladly accepted. I’m not sure I even understand their response …
w.
Willis, they refer to “your FOI request of 25th January 2007”. I don’t see an FOI request of this date in the correspondence catalogued above. Is there another letter somewhere?
I’m just glad I didn’t have this much trouble getting elevation data. Of course, such data is not controversial.
Mark
#47, Willis:
It sounds like they are offering to identify station locations on the CRU website, but only if you demand it.
You should ask that they do so, whether you intend to appeal their decision on raw data or not. Somebody could use it. If this were US administrative law, I’d guess you have no chance of winning an appeal. UK law may be similar. The Info Commissioner would likely only do a review of what has already been discovered – not do an independent investigation. An appeal is probably more appropriate where the authority below admits they have the data in question but refuses to turn it over b/c of a claimed exemption. That would be a legal question, the sort determined in an appeal.
This doesn’t mean you can’t make another request, asking for any records that ID the off-site source(s) of raw data, for example.
Willis:
If you asked them for “any record, whether in paper, electronic, or other format, that identifies the source of raw data used for PAPER X – including records found in the research notebooks or other papers of Dr. Jones or other UEA personnel…” and they refused to provide access to Jones’s papers b/c of academic freedom – that would be a good issue to appeal.
Re #47
Willis,
It seems you have achieved some success. I agree that the response is a bit hard to parse. They still say they can’t tell you how to get the data they use, but they apparently have and will provide a list of stations including coordinates, elevation, name, and WMO number. It seems Palmer was only offering a list of names. What they don’t say is if this list will be representative of the stations used in the CRU compilations or simply a list of stations. You may wish to seek clarification on that point.
I work for the U.S. government and have some experience with our own FOIA. It may be that you are asking for information, whereas the system is designed to provide documents. If the information you seek is not specifically contained within certain records the agency is under no obligation to compile that information for you. I suspect that your request is being deliberately interpreted by CRU as requiring compilation of information and hence they are unable to provide it.
My suggestion is to take what you can get out of this effort, provided it is actually responsive to your request and not simply a list of all meteorological stations in the world. I recall stating this in another post somewhere, but for future requests you’ll want to request specific records. Bear in mind that the term record or document should be interpreted liberally by the information officer to include paper copies, emails, data files, etc., as long as they are captured in your request. Some examples of requests to make are:
Just some thoughts. This is what the information officer will be looking for, at least in my experience. Good lucking getting that list of stations on the web!
Escalating to the Information Commissioner will be interesting. Although, doubtless, another bureaucrat, he will be from outside Academia, and might not feel the same pressure to protect the CRU.
It might also be good to have another try at the current level. This is not just a normal bureaucratic issue, this is science, or it’s supposed to be.
It would be interesting to see how explcit and precise a statement you can get that the CRU is not keeping scientific records.
5 Trackbacks
[…] over a year and many letters and appeals to even get this station list. Their original refusal CRU stated that the data was already located at GHCN as follows: Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be […]
[…] Measuring Precipitation on Willis’ Boots :: My first report of my Freedom of Information request to the Climategate folks. The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole… :: Account of my experiences with the Climategate folks. Editorializing about the Editorial :: Discussion of climategate and the Science Magazine editorial on same. […]
[…] contemporaneous account of the CRU and the FOI lunacy is a posting on ClimateAudit entitled “Measuring Precipitation on Willis’ Boots“. (Not my title, that was Steve McIntyre’s). You should read it first for a concise […]
[…] My contemporaneous account of the CRU and the FOI lunacy is a posting on ClimateAudit entitled “Measuring Precipitation on Willis’ Boots“. (Not my title, that was Steve McIntyre’s). You should read it first for a concise background, […]
[…] as one of Jones’ reasons for not providing a list of stations used in HadCRU3. As reported here , CRU said that these were governed by confidentiality agreements: The remaining 2% of data that is […]