Unfortunately, IPCC seems far more concerned about secrecy than in requiring its contributors to archive data. I received another request to remove discussion of IPCC draft reports. On this issue, David Appell and I are in full agreement – see David Appell’s collection of ZOD chapters here. (Jan 30 Update – see below.)
An excellent article at Bishop Hill here describing a clean sweep for Don Keiller in court (with David Holland as a “Mackenzie friend”) against the University of East Anglia and its solicitors. Decision is here. The article reports on Keiller’s appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Case No. EA/2011/0152) in the General Regulatory Chamber – Information […]
Earlier this year, I reported on the refusal of Raphael Neukom, an associate of IPCC confidentiality advocate and WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker at the University of Bern, to archive data used in a then recent multiproxy study, Neukom et al 2011 (Clim Dyn). In his refusal letter, Neukom stated that Most of the non-publicly available […]
In December, the WG1 TSU of the IPCC sent me a formal notice asking me to remove Climate Audit discussion of the IPCC Zero Draft. In this notice, they stated: It has come to our attention that several Chapters of the Zero Order Draft (ZOD) of WGI AR5 are being cited, quoted and discussed on […]
Climategate 2.0 emails shed remarkable light on the role of Nature news “reporter”, Olive Heffernan, in the development of a “legend” to place CRU data obstruction in a better light. They show that Jones had candidly admitted to Heffernan that his real reason for refusing data was simply to obstruct potential critics – a position […]
Ross McKitrick, in his non-climate life, writes from time to time on particulate matter pollution in Ontario. The Toronto Globe and Mail ran a a story a few days ago about Toronto in 1912, showing the picture at left in its print edition. The amount of pollution looks like some present-day images of Chinese cities. […]
In today’s post, I continue my re-appraisal of various untrue statements made by the University of East Anglia in order to avoid disclosure of CRUTEM station data. I do not consider motives at this time. Also see preceding posts here, here. In East Anglia’s response to July 2009 FOI requests for alleged confidentiality agreements (here) […]
Climategate 2.0 emails contain an interesting backstory on East Anglia’s evasion of Steve Mosher’s request for something as simple as university policies that governed entry into confidentiality agreements. Palmer consulted university specialists, receiving an answer that was adverse to the line that they were taking in their CRUtem refusals. Rather than providing this information to […]
The FOIA/Mole incident of July 2009 attracted much public interest and somehow seems connected to the subsequent Climategate events, though precisely how (and even whether) remains unclear. The incident was discussed in both Mosher and Fuller’s CRUTape Letters and Fred Pearce’s Climate Files, though not in Andrew Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion (which was mostly complete […]
Richard Muller sent me the BEST list of “very rural” sites – see http://www.climateaudit.info/data/station/berkeley. I took a quick look at the “very rural” stations in two tropical countries – Peru and Thailand – in order to groundtruth their classification methodology. These two examples were chosen because several years ago, I looked at Hansen’s “rural” Peru […]
Climate Audit 