Sunday
Sep052010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill UEA response to the inquiries
Sep 5, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Russell UEA has issued a response to the various inquiries. The timing is odd, to say the least. Perhaps they've all been on holiday.
See it here.
Reader Comments (62)
They are just now returning from their extended summer break and will return to the University for a week or two before they prepare for the Christmas holidays.
Nice work if you can get it.
Perhaps they've all been on holiday?
Yes for about a decade.
I will now go and read it.
These mellifluous words from the UEA are for public consumption, but behind the scenes there is surely frenetic activity. They must come to terms with a new reality and some of that new reality is really rather unpleasant. Firstly, the recognition that CRU’s reputation has been tarnished in that some of its scientists appear to be pretty amateurish: newspapers like the Mail and the Express will take great pleasure in publishing anything negative about CRU’s competence. Secondly, coming to terms with the blogosphere, in which lurk hundreds of scientifically savvy readers, some of whom have skills and intellects far exceeding those of the CRU scientists. The blogosphere will dissect in detail any paper which comes out of CRU and the blogosphere is no respecter of peer review. So I think UEA is like a swan, gliding over the surface of the lake whilst great activity is taking place below the water line. The activity may lead to retirements or further reorganisations, but at the forefront of UEA’s mind is that it should never endure such scrutiny again.
I think this is an attempt to rubber stamp the listed reviews of their activities prior to your grace's upcoming review of the reviews.
I guess the "university" is filled with contempt for the "blogosphere". Just ask them how many "online" courses they are offering.
The "University" also writes:
"There was a delay in archiving tree ring data by its owners. The University will, as part of a wider protocol documenting the agreements over the use of data provided by others, promote the benefits of such data being archived and accessible. In some instances, however, this will not be achievable, particularly where the commercial interests of the owners come into play."
That's it, right there, in front of us - what the skeptics have been pointing out all along as the central problem of climate science....
Making money off tree rings.
These guys are beyond funny. ;)
"The University is indebted to Sir Muir Russell and his team for conducting a comprehensive, thoughtful and challenging Review into the allegations which have been made against the University’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) following the publication of a large number of emails and other material, which are believed to have been obtained illegally from a back-up server in CRU."
The UEA still believes the emails were obtained illegally (theft?). I wonder where the police investigation has got to after all this time? What happened to the whistle-blower theory? Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, whistleblowers are generally protected by law.
I tried to read it a couple of times but broke down laughing at "comprehensive, thoughtful and challenging Review ". Both times. I am therefore indebted to other commentators who struggled on further.
I vote for Dung's explanation - that and the upcoming encore performances before the parliamentary S&T committee.
The spin that Muir Russell allowed them to put on the CRU crew's IPCC gatekeeping activities is one I found to be particularly jarring:
As I have noted on my own blog:
If the "implication" that the text was "[Briffa's] responsibility" is incorrect, how does one explain the imperative that he consider whether he "should change things"?
Then again, perhaps post-normal science dictates an attribution of meaning to the word "I" that is significantly different from the common understanding of this particular subjective, 1st person, singular, pronoun.
When is an IPCC rule not an IPCC rule?
"we welcome the finding that there was no attempt to delete information with respect to a request already made."
As long they are better at knowing what to delete, than the FOIAers are at knowing what to ask for... ;)
To me, the UEA italicized comments indicate that they are an insincere bunch who feel their reputation will be sullied more by examining the skeptics claims than by dismissing them.
Look at this
Professor Jones has commented that, while emails are cleared out from time to time, this is to keep accounts manageable and within the allocated storage. (92, 28)
How can they keep a straight face and offer up this? What about copies of his emails on the server and back-up copies? Look at the response to #10.9
We accept this, albeit, as is recognised in the Information Commissioner’s guidance, retrieving such data may not always be a practical option
Retrieval of old emails is "not a practical option"? What are they trying to say?
I agree with Dung. It's probably an effort from Acton to get some assertions lodged into the historical record, pre-empting both the up-coming HoCSC "product recall" and Andrew's GWPF enquiry review.
UEA response: "10.7 A number of emails appeared to incite deletion or evidence deletion of other emails, although there was no evidence of emails being deleted that were the subject of a request for disclosure."
This is one of the egregious errors in the Russell Review. The 'Decision Notice' (issued 7.7.10) of the Information Commissioner investigating the issue from an FOI/EIR viewpoint noted four relevant communications - three in the 24 days prior to the 'delete any emails' request from Phil Jones to Michael Mann. For the Russell Review to say 'there was no evidence of emails being deleted that were subject of a request for disclosure' is - well - a mistake.
The table of FOI/EIR requests to the University of East Anglia, published as evidence in the Russell report, omits reference to these communications other than one on 5.5.2008. The omission has been pointed out to UEA who have responded that the error has been pointed out to the Russell Review.
I am unable to find any emendation of the Russell Review error.
Now UEA recites this erroneous conclusion.
The fundamental problem with the Russell Review is that it was not independent (despite claiming to be so). The above summary of just one instance where the Russell Review erred, is evidence of how the lack of independence really mattered.
More details of this specific failure of Russell at http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/22/blatant-misrepresentation-by-muir-russell-panel/
As far as the Dung theory is concerned, UEA are, for sure, aware of the Bishop's upcoming review, and will be concerned how it will play out. A derisive barrage of rebuttal can be anticipated from the climatic establishment's grossly offended equivalents of the 'disgusteds of Tunbridge Wells'.
Having read, and re-read section 10.7 on email deletion, I am intrigued by whether or not UEA are admitting actual illegal deletions. In any event, the excuse that 'this is to keep accounts manageable and within the allocated storage' is Yes Minister worthy.
You can obtain an understanding of the level of 'independence' that Muir Russell had in his investigation of the climategate emails here:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/09/the-botched-examination-of-the-back-up-server/
and here:
http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/Report%20on%20email%20extraction.pdf
One can see, for example, that according to "UEA‘s legal advisers, unconstrained access to the contents of e-mails on the server by the Review would raise potential privacy and data protection issue" and "The processes of analysis to identify (and then review) additional email traffic which might be associated with the issues which are the subject of the allegations which have been levelled against CRU, is likely to take at least several weeks. It would be for the Review Team and the University to determine whether the cost, inevitable time delays and (at this time) uncertain outcomes could be justified."
So the information provided to the "independent" Muir Ressell review was very clearly controlled (and limited) by the UEA.
But perhaps this is all part of Acton's effort to mislead parliament?
This is a typical legal phrase used by the defence to mislead juries. What it actually means is that while there is a lot of very convincing circumstantial evidence that it's up to the prosecution to prove it.
The beauty of this statement in this context is that there isn't a prosecution. This is entirely a defence case.
Jerry wrote:
Bingo. And this seems to be their preferred pattern of response. As Ross McKitrick noted in concluding his response to the inquiries:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/inquiries_response.pdf
13.3 We agree And have successfully Bid for grant funding........
Who is the grant from? Taxpayers...again? They simply have no shame!
"13.3 We agree And have successfully Bid for grant funding........
Who is the grant from? Taxpayers...again? They simply have no shame!"
Sep 6, 2010 at 5:56 AM | Pete Hayes
And why's that exactly? You think the CRU should be the only university department in the country not to receive government funding, simply because you don't agree with their findings?
Great old world it would be if that theory was put into place. Bye bye natural history courtesy of creationists, medical testing on animals, psychiatry would go due to Scientologists etc.
Deniers really are hilarious.
Easy there, Tiger! LOL!
The catastrophists do have a propensity for ludicrous extrapolation, don't they?
The UEA is very celebratory, when singing to potential new students, about how well they do for funding. And it's true, they do very well indeed. But they have an established history of taking the money and not doing the work. For example, they had 5 years, and funding, to implement an appropriate FOI handling mechanism as required by law. It never happened. That's just disgusting.
You think it's okay to throw good money after bad. I don't.
"For example, they had 5 years, and funding, to implement an appropriate FOI handling mechanism as required by law. It never happened. That's just disgusting.
You think it's okay to throw good money after bad. I don't."
Sep 6, 2010 at 9:33 AM | SimonH
So the primary job of the CRU is answering FOI requests? Wouldn't it then be called the FOIRU?
Do you feel confident offering a guarantee that the FOI process wasn't being abused to an extent, that such massive volumes of requests were being submitted, that their primary intention, by some, was to divert resources away from research and purely into satisfying these requests?
If so, how much funding is sufficient to combat a diversionary tactic with the potential to generate an almost infinite amount of needless work?
Incidentally, logical extension and ludicrous extrapolation are different things. Just 'cos you don't like it, don't make it so.
Zeds....
"...that such massive volumes of requests were being submitted.."
I can't remermber how many requests there were but you exagerate. Still, that's what warmers do...
Anyway if they followed true scientific principals and released their data there would be no need for any FOI requests.
ZDB
A couple of points:
The priorities of the CRU are set out in law - i.e. their obligations under FoI are non-negotiable.
I for one am very confident that the level of FoI requests was not excessive. The former information commissioner said it was not unreasonable, when he was questioned on the matter by the HoC Science and Tech committee. Also, CRU did not invoke the exemption from the FoI act that is available to them when the level of requests is unreasonable.
"Zeds....
"...that such massive volumes of requests were being submitted.."
I can't remermber how many requests there were but you exagerate. Still, that's what warmers do...
Anyway if they followed true scientific principals and released their data there would be no need for any FOI requests."
Sep 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM | Jimmy Haigh
Really - you know exactly how many FOI requests were submitted to the CRU? Please point me to where I can see that information please.
If you can't, your comment is pure rubbish.
ZedsDeadBed,
your use of the term 'Denier' does smack of desperation on your part. You make an interesting point but can’t help undermining yourself with petty name calling. If you insist on using the term I strongly recommend you take a long look at yourself in a mirror.
Now, back to the point you were trying to make. If climate science cannot, or will not, practice science with the same rigour and thoroughness as other disciplines, and shows itself to be indistinguishable from PR and politics and business at its margins, why should it be treated any differently to those you list?
"Also, CRU did not invoke the exemption from the FoI act that is available to them when the level of requests is unreasonable."
Sep 6, 2010 at 9:59 AM | Bishop Hill
Hi Bish.
Surely it's to their credit that they didn't? This would strike me as a 'dammed if you do, dammed if you don't' one for you guys.
Imagine the outrage if they'd actually asked to be exempt from FOI requests.
Walk a mile in another man's shoes. If you're Phil Jones, and you're being bombarded with FOI requests which you strongly suspect (with good cause), are to divert your time and/or to find very spurious grounds indeed to criticise your work, then you might not be perfect at fulfilling them.
It might be a legal necessity, but we all know the law isn't a perfect fit for practical real world functionality, and can be put to nefarious uses.
Incidentally, regarding the former information commissioner, that's their opinion. Although not worthless, it's also not definitive.
"ZedsDeadBed,
your use of the term 'Denier' does smack of desperation on your part. You make an interesting point but can’t help undermining yourself with petty name calling. If you insist on using the term I strongly recommend you take a long look at yourself in a mirror.
Now, back to the point you were trying to make. If climate science cannot, or will not, practice science with the same rigour and thoroughness as other disciplines, and shows itself to be indistinguishable from PR and politics and business at its margins, why should it be treated any differently to those you list?"
Sep 6, 2010 at 10:02 AM | Varco
When I see denier sites like this one ceasing to use emotive and judgemental terms like 'alarmist', 'catastrophist', 'warmist' etc. then I'll stop calling you all deniers. I'm aware that the term does have complex overtones, but the comparison is an appropriate one for weight of evidence/consequences of denial.
Regarding your second point, climate science is as rigorous and thorough as other disciplines, so bit of a non-point really.
ZDB
Well, in the first instance, the Information Commissioner's opinion is definitive, since they will rule on whether the application of any exemption is allowable in law. I think your other point about CRU being damned if they did invoke the exemption doesn't hold water. CRU had no qualms about invoking any other exemption, so I can't see why this one would be different. They continue to invoke exemptions now.
@ZDB
'Regarding your second point, climate science is as rigorous and thorough as other disciplines, so bit of a non-point really'
Really? As rigorous as Chemistry or Physics? Or Statistics - please see discussion re Hockey Stick and 'unusual methods' used in climate science work? And as through in their rigorous data collection and analysis?
Or as rigorous as sociology, PPE or Media Studies? Where opinion and personal values count more than scientific rigour.
You choose.
Zebedee wrote: "Incidentally, regarding the former information commissioner, that's their opinion. Although not worthless, it's also not definitive."
That's right. Who the hell does the Information Commissioner think he is, talking about FOI requests? the nerve of the guy!
/sarc
"I think your other point about CRU being damned if they did invoke the exemption doesn't hold water. CRU had no qualms about invoking any other exemption, so I can't see why this one would be different. They continue to invoke exemptions now."
Sep 6, 2010 at 10:30 AM | Bishop Hill
We'll have to agree to differ on that one.
I'm going to maintain that any criticisms made by deniers that failure to invoke the FOI exemption, is evidence that requests weren't excessive, would pale into insignificance compared to the stink you'd kick up, and the accusations that would be made, if it had been invoked.
"Zebedee wrote:"
Sep 6, 2010 at 10:34 AM | Stuck-record
It's always very telling when someone immediately starts using name-calling in responses. Y'know, like a petulant child does.
"It's always very telling when someone immediately starts using name-calling in responses. Y'know, like a petulant child does."
Oh dear, Zebedee, time for your bed methinks!
Zebedee: "It's always very telling when someone immediately starts using name-calling in responses. Y'know, like a petulant child does."
Hmmm. Take a deep breath, climb down off your high-horse and repeat after me: "I, ZedsDeadBed must not use name-calling against 'Deniers' – DOH!"
Z-thingy said
As a former pratictioner in atmospheric physics & meteorology I can say that 'climate science' (whatever that is) is not a discipline as understood in the hard sciences.
It is much more like economics than hard science in that it has a large number of people with conflicting views and insufficient expertise in any specific subject to be able to put forward an internally consistent and well argued case.
Pause for economics joke ( you can apply this to climate scientists as well )
Q. Why are there no one-armed economists?
A. Because economists continually say "on the one hand... but on the other hand..."
Also - to those posters that confuse Z-thingy with Mr Zebedee : It would be pretty nice if Z-thingy said "Time for bed." and disappeared soonish.
ZBD
“Walk a mile in another man's shoes.”
Always good sound advice that I have to remind myself of on many, many occasions
Following are examples of Phil Jones’s “shoes” were walking before the FOI requests were made:-
“Phil Jones - Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !”
“Phil Jones - Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”
May I therefore respectfully suggest that you heed your own good advice and “Walk a mile in another man's shoes.” The “contrarians” shoes, yes, contrarian, that was the description used in 2005, polite, and could be described as a correct scientific description of somebody taking a contrary scientific stance, not sceptic or septic or denier.
Sep 6, 2010 at 10:53 AM | Green Sand
Oh if only there had been three separate inquiries that had exonerated the CRU. If there had been, then that would mean you were carping on about old and disproved news like a dog that can't let go of a bone.
ZBD - Going downwards fighting an uphill battle ... not the best of strategies.
Do you even know exactly what you mean that your so called 'deniers' actually are denying?
Chaps & Chapettes
Mr/Ms Z thingy is distracting from the original topic.
I doubt it's targetd at this topic. Mr/Ms Z thingy has a history of provoking people - from their alleged location in Truro (google is your friend). This provocation is across a wide range of topics - many entirely unrelated to anything on this blog.
Assume perhaps that Z-thingy is an OAP or sickness benficiary who has nothing beter to do with their time than try to annoy people.
Can we get back on topic please and ignore Z*?
@ZDB
'Regarding your second point, climate science is as rigorous and thorough as other disciplines, so bit of a non-point really'
Hardly the same rigour as is applied in other sciences then.
Quote cited above meant to include a reference to
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/pachauri-admits-the-ipcc-just-guesses-the-numbers/
I said on a previous thread to ignore Zebedee as he/she appears from nowhere and spends a while annoying and distracting people with insults and cr*p, before disappearing (hopefully) again. Anyone can see his/her (deliberate?) lack of logic. He/she suffers from acute cognitive dissonance.
Jerry, thanks for that. Did a Google as you suggested and found Zebedee. Oh Dearie me. Won't waste any more time on them.
9.6 Allegations that in two specific cases there had been a misuse by CRU of the IPCC process, in presenting AR4 to the public and policy makers, could not be substantiated. CRU researchers were part of a large group of scientists taking responsibility for the AR4 text, and were not in a position to determine the content. (13, 26)
I'm only half-way through "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and as a healthy sceptic (not denier) have had my breath taken away by the close relationship between these " post normal scientists" with huge influence on the IPCC. Their attack-dog response to any criticism is reminiscent of the tactics used by the recent Labour government in the UK and perhaps reflects the wider international efforts to replace democracy with a Communitarian society.
I also did a Google on Zebedee. The words “Anger Management” springs to mind….Oh dear.
ZedsDeadBed so how do you explain why Phil planed to avoid FOI requests before he even got one?
13.4:
At the point of publication of research, enough information should be available for others to reconstruct the process of analysis, including the source code.
The University responds:
The University accepts this should be the case, unless valuable intellectual property or other commercial constraints are in play.
The panel is advising that:
a) "enough information about the process to help in reconstruction" - not the whole body of work itself, as exaggerating obfuscators, to be amply found in warmist hothouses, decry
b) "at the time of publication" - not anytime before that
c) "should be available to others" - does not mean carry out and place all your work in public transparent glasshouses, only implies "go about your work, give it to those who ask for it, or put it up somewhere when it is done"
But, this is not acceptable to the "university", they want to hang caveats on that.
This is peculiar behavior indeed. For a bunch of people who got together and violated the spirit of the FOIA law, for years, they do seem to be quite obsessive about the sifting through each and every word, of the recommendations, of a toothless inquiry panel. What good will this defensive behavior do them?
"ZedsDeadBed so how do you explain why Phil planed to avoid FOI requests before he even got one?"
Sep 6, 2010 at 12:17 PM | KnR
Are you talking about the climategate emails KnR? If only there were three separate independent inquiries that had looked at that...
"toothless inquiry panel"
Sep 6, 2010 at 12:22 PM | Shub Niggurath
i.e. didn't give the result you wanted.
See also: whitewash, insufficient sceptical representation etc.
ZDB, thank you for demonstrating so graphically that the cost of defending the indefensible is the sacrifice of your own credibility.
Zeds
You must be an intelligent person, apart from the trolling and all that. :), so why don't you examine this question yourself?
The "University" called for, and paid for this Emails Review. As you point out the inquiry/investigative aspect of the review was a whitewash indeed - they did not look all the emails from the University server, the Chairman of the review avoided talking to Phil Jones, you know the whole thing.
We are not talking about that here. Let that be as it is, Phil Jones has his conscience to answer to.
But the review panel did come up with some, what it calls, 'recommendations'.
All the University had to do was say: Yessir, will do our best to abide. But they wont even do that. Why?
Because they feel they might be held up, to the puny standards advocated by the Review? Is that it?
Good comments on the article all, very informative.
I couldn't agree more with the deconstructions of the -gavin wannabe, either. I wasn't sure it was an actual troll at first or a straw-puppet/devil's advocate charactertization being used to illustrate just how absurd these people are. I have one suggestion to all future -gavins, though. If you're going to call people's comments 'pure rubbish' for questioning your warmer's-deluge of FOI requests, perhaps you might consider having that answer (the actual number of requests) yourself. Any -gavin who can get away with the likes of that in a blog surely requires the ability to hide/delete inconveniet replies.
Fortunately, the trolling character helps us illustrate the true absurdity of the organization and the inquiries. Without examining the relevant facts the three inquiries could no more exonerate the science of the UAE and modellers anymore than they could be said to settle all questions surrounding the existance of life on other planets. This might pass for oversight in the United Kingdom of Mexico, but one would hope for far better inside the Commonwealth.
Can the FOI authorities in the UK be asked or compelled by the FOIA to finally reveal how many requests they actually recieved over a given period of time for a given institution? Until then I think we can safely assume the accusations of these 'floods' of requests are as overstated as the CAGW promises of massive sea-level rise and the earth falling into the sun.
Thanks for the forum, and as Red Green would say, Keep your stick(s) on the ice!