For some reason, Michael Tobis seems to think that the Team is busy cranking out responses to an endless stream of my data requests. Nothing could be further from the truth. For me, getting data from the Team is no easier than posting at realclimate. At this point, it seems to be Team policy to simply not provide any data to me. So it doesn’t take them any time at all.
I racked my brains trying to think of whether I got any data from the Team last year (and by Team here, I mean the core Hockey Team, not the IPCC). The only thing that I could think of was the list of stations used in Jones et al 1990, which was eventually provided under a UK FOI request. I encountered an interesting little back story about this request today.
I reported on these exchanges last year, commencing with my initial request to Phil Jones on Feb 22, 2007, their first refusal and my concurrent request for re-consideration on the grounds of unresponsiveness on March 12, 2007, their partial acquiescence on April 3, 2007, my follow-up on the part where they remained unresponsiveness and their final refusal.. Immediately on receipt of this information, I wrote some interesting posts on Chinese stations here here here . Doug Keenan followed up on this information as well.
I was browsing NCAR sites this morning in an attempt to find out what they were ( a “federally funded research and development center” turns out to be a sui generis class of institution.) I could hardly resist looking at a presentation entitled:
Tom Karl & Larry Tyminski
Co-Chairs: NOAA Data Management Committee
NOAA Science Advisory Board’s Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG)
May 24-25, 2007 Chicago, IL
Skipping through this presentation, on page 13, to my surprise, I found the following slide, containing a request in a style that was not unrecognizable:
On March 12, 2007, after CRU had stonewalled my initial request for the identity of the Jones et al 1990 stations, in addition to requesting that they re-consider this matter, I had also sent an FOI request to NOAA in the form shown in the Karl presentation. Interestingly, I never received any acknowledgement from NOAA on this FOI request at all. Since CRU re-considered and provided the requested information on April 3, 2007, I didn’t follow up with NOAA or appeal with them.
So even though they never answered my request in any way whatever, in May 2007, a couple of months later, my request was being used in NOAA presentations on data archiving.
It continues. On Aug 23, 2007, the Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG) issued a report entitled Report to the Science Advisory Board National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, containing the following slides:
Amused by this, I sent the following letter today to Thomas Karl (forwarding my oridinal request of March 12, 2007):
Dear Dr Karl,
I notice that the following FOI request was discussed in two recent NOAA presentations:
Tom Karl & Larry Tyminski, Co-Chairs: NOAA Data Management Committee. NOAA Science Advisory Board’s Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG), May 24-25, 2007
Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG), Report to the Science Advisory Board National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 23 August, 2007
May I observe a certain irony in respect to the use of this FOI request in your presentations. I did not actually receive any reply from NOAA to this FOI request, not even an acknowledgement. The situation later became moot when the U.K. authors re-considered their prior refusal to provide the information. If NOAA had a hand in this, I’d like to express my appreciation, but I’d still like to note for the record, that the FOI request referred to in these presentations never received a reply.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
NOAA archives an extraordinary amount of data. In paleoclimate, NOAA maintains the excellent World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, a facility that I try to support at every opportunity. And yet how often do we hear paleoclimate scientists whine about how expensive it would be to archive data? All they have to do is email their data to WDCP, who look after everything else in a professional manner. NOAA’s been very courteous to Anthony Watts’ project.
Although NOAA never responded to my FOI request, I’m wondering if maybe they whispered into CRU’s ear and maybe that’s why CRU re-considered their prior refusal. Just wondering. (See follow-up to this here.)