In yesterday’s post, I discussed the inconsistency between the climate community’s desire to rebuild trust and CRU/East Anglia’s continuing refusal of FOI requests, most recently for the 2006 version of the Yamal regional chronology. The moral of that post was that providing such information – even if they didn’t “have” to – was the sort […]
Interestingarticle at Science (mag) Insider here. The writer sought perspectives on potential liability in relation to FOI from two aspects: the deletion of emails subject to an FOI request: According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI […]
Richard Kerr of Science has reported on the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings. Having lived through the hearings, it’s interesting to see how they get characterized. For example, Kerr says: He [North] said he doesn’t disagree with Wegman’s main finding that a single year or a single decade cannot be shown to be the […]
I’ve reported before that Science decided not to require Osborn and Briffa 2006 to provide supporting measurement data for their Taimyr, Tornetrask and “Polar Urals” (Yamal) chronologies. While I disagree with that decision and may pursue the matter further with them, I asked Osborn to voluntarily provide the measurement data. I received a reply from […]
One more attempt to extract data. This the 39th email in my correspondence with Science and I still don’t have a complete record on either Esper et al 2002 or Osborn and Briffa 2006. And people wonder why I haven’t published more. Continues from here Dear Dr Hanson, Thank you for your continued efforts in […]
Getting methodological information from Esper is a bit like dealing with Mann, a lot like dealing with Mann. It really makes me wonder whether there might be some clunker like Mann’s PC methodology lurking in Esper’s closet. Like Mann, instead of providing a comprehensive methodological desscription ideally with code as in econometrics journals, Esper would […]
Osborn and Briffa site chronologies differed from Esper site chronologies for 4 sites. Site chronologies can differ depending on the standardization method used; in order to analyze the effect, one needs to see the measurement data. Hundreds of measurement data sets have been archived at WDCP. The really weird thing is that the Hockey Team […]
Update: Continued here I just heard back from Science on the continuing and frustrating effort to obtain data from Esper et al. [2002] and Osborn and Briffa [2006], last discussed here . I got interesting but incomplete information in February and March. The latest installment is very disappointing in comparison even though, in my opinion, […]
Update: Next instalment here On March 16, Science sent me 10 (out of 14) measurement data sets used by Esper; one gridcell temperature series used by Osborn-Briffa and caused Briffa to archive annual data versions at WDCP in addition to the smoothed versions. The new information has been extremely helpful to me. However, the information […]
Here’s a summary (archive)from Science of last week’s NAS panel. The heat was on a 12-person National Research Council committee last week as it tackled the politically charged debate over how scientists have gauged temperatures from the past millennium or two. Chair Gerald North of Texas A&M University in College Station kept the audience on […]
Climate Audit 
Sciencemag on House E&C Hearing
Richard Kerr of Science has reported on the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings. Having lived through the hearings, it’s interesting to see how they get characterized. For example, Kerr says: He [North] said he doesn’t disagree with Wegman’s main finding that a single year or a single decade cannot be shown to be the […]