One of my follow-up FOI questions on Oct 31, 2008 about the gridded Briffa et al MXD data was the following:
I examined Gridbox 7(132.5E 72.5N) in more detail. It contains one series: omoloyla. The gridded series (#7) has values from 1400-1991, but the underlying omoloyla chronology at ITRDB only goes from 1496 to 1991 and the underlying measurement data for omoloyla at ITRDB only has values for the period 1496-1991. Please provide any manuals, computer code, documents or correspondence explaining how the values from 1400-1495 were obtained. If a different omoloyla data set was used for this study than the data set at ITRDB, would you please advise and provide the data actually used in this study. If there are similar discrepancies for other sites, would you please provide a listing of sites for which the version used differs from the ITRDB version.
The reason for asking for manuals, documents or correspondence is this: straightforward questions to the Team don’t get answers. If they don’t want to answer straightforward questions, I’ll do the next thing: go to FOI requests. But under FOI, I’m entitled to ask for documents, not for answers. So I ask for documents, such as manuals. Having refused to answer questions, the Team now takes offence at being asked for documents. The form of request is not onerous: no business accountant would blink at being asked such a question. However, Phil Jones wrote to the Santer 17 complaining as follows:
He now wants to know why some individual series were excluded from the chronologies and why some chronologies were excluded in subsequent analyses. This time they have asked for manuals, computer code and correspondence explaining the exclusions! It seems neverending. If they just did some paleo fieldwork with trees, corals, sediment cores they might understand why some samples are excluded.
As it happens, I have experience in mining exploration programs and I can assure Phil Jones that, contray to this experience enabling me to “understand why some samples are excluded”, it gives me exactly the opposite perspective. It makes it virtually impossible for me to think up valid explanations for “excluding” some samples. It’s illegal in the businesses that I know.
Anyhow, CRU answered as follows:
We have checked our files and no manuals, computer code, documents or correspondence are available. We can confirm, however, that we did not use a different Omoloyla data set and therefore there is no further data to provide.
Briffa has published over 8 articles on his MXD data and yet they have the nerve to say that “no manuals, computer code, documents or correspondence are available”.
Their website has values for Gridbox 7 from 1400-1495 even though there are no measurements from 1400-1495. But they have no idea how these numbers were calculated. And they don’t have any “manuals, computer code, documents or correspondence” explaining how they got these values. Did they just make the numbers up?
And the climate science community gets mad at me for criticizing this crap, rather than the people who deposited it.