Inquiries from Jonathan Leake of the Sunday Times resulted in the following statement on Jan 22, 2010 by Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, Information Commissioner’s Office. Smith stated that David Holland’s FOI requests were “not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation”, that it is an “offence for public authorities to act so […]
“Community” climate scientists (e.g. Nature, Realclimate) have been quick to accept the idea that CRU was prevented from releasing station data because of confidentiality agreements with originating meteorological services. Something that Nature and Realclimate didn’t discuss or even seem to notice – and the blind spot is symptomatic – is that Jones delivered “confidential” data […]
As noted in yesterday’s post, Nature recently editorialized: If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to […]
Climate scientists have recently been promoting the myth that providing data in response to FOI requests was interfering with their work. Nature uncritically accepted this myth in a recent editorial calling for action to protect climate-change researchers from “endless time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.”: If there are […]
Around Dec 8, 2009, the UK Met Office released “value added” data for a “subset” of 1741 stations – see here, describing the release as follows: The data downloadable from this page are a subset of the full HadCRUT3 record of global temperatures, which is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned IPCC […]
Willis Eschenbach’s account of his FOI request has been published on other blogs (e.g. here ) but I’m re-publishing it because Willis actually sent it to me first and the events all played out and were documented in real time at Climate Audit (see here for posts on FOI). After pursuing matters until April 2007, […]
IPCC policies state that their process is supposed to be open and transparent and that all comments are to be archived. Previously, we observed that the Lead Author Responses to our Review Comments were completely unresponsive on key issues. Under IPCC policies, the Review Editor is charged with seeing that this doesn’t happen. John Mitchell […]
Given the tumultuous events of the past few days, the receipt of yet another refusal to provide station data pursuant to an FOI request may seem a little uneventful. But the chronology of this most recent refusal is, to say the least, interesting.
I reported here on my efforts to get the WGIII Review Editors’ comments back online together with the Lead Authors’ Responses and the Review Editors’ Reports. I had sent Patrick Matschoss, the head of AR5 WGIII TSU an open letter for him to put to the IPCC Bureau urging an open and transparent process in […]
At the beginning of September, I was copied an email discussion reporting the online publication in Climatic Change of a paper by Warwick McKibbin, David Pearce, and Alison Stegman. What was notable about this paper was that it was submitted in September 2005. What for readers of this site, perhaps, was unremarkable was that it […]
Climate Audit 