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)
I prefer Richard Lindzens attitude to the term "denier" :
Since there is no solid evidence that CO2 is causing current warming or more than a small part of warming in the last century, there is as yet nothing to deny.
However I am happy to be called sceptical of claims that CO2 is the cause when there is an absence of proof.
My sense is that this document was written by a lawyer. You don't put something like this out unless you think that there is more battle ahead. CRU is clearly expecting more and this is a marker that they can point back to. I think they are trying to establish that they are acting in good faith. Which suggests to me that they are worried about that aspect of their case.
ZedsDeadBed yes the e-mails where he openly planed to avoid FOI request before he got a single one , hardly the poor abused by FOI requests image the CRU are trying to sell.
In fact there is an interesting issue here in that Phil claimed to be unaware of the FOI but talked about the impact of FOI on his work.
In addition CRU should have records on when people did FOI training as such it may well be possible to prove that when Phil was claiming he did not know what FOI he had in fact done training on the subject and was therefore being 'economical with the truth' for a change.
I am finding zedbed's comments awfully distracting. At first one lives in hope that trolls are capable of listening. They inspire one to go back to basics and explain things carefully, both of which are good exercises.
Then they just go on and on and on and ON. And one realizes they never listened to one's comments in the first place, except to see them as fitting deniers' meme number 5173 that can be falsified with reply number 5173.
Zedbed always structures his posts with a quote followed by his withering put-down reply. And he's as fast a sharpshooter as WMC, like he has nothing better to do.
It seems to me that to such people, the very concept of Scientific Method as an attitude of openness, curiosity, and precision in observation, that permeates a person right through, or not at all, is missing. There's no concept that the precision of observation applicable to the subject of observation is equally applicable to the observer himself as useful self-knowledge, and to the manner of communication as clarity and courtesy.
For such inflexible AGW-supporters, it seems all the science means to them is passing exams and getting peer-reviewed and defending the system: a system that allowed one in on these secondrate standards but forgot about the firstrate basics that don't just selectively do Scientific Method up to a point, but actually live it as a kind of spiritual practice and habitual attitude to life. Otherwise they'd know the scientific reasonableness of most stuff put forward here.
On the number of FOI requests, a Google turned up the House of Commons report...
98.There are two issues here: the adequacy of CRU’s handling of the FOIA requests and whether the increase in the number of requests in July 2009 was a deluge. On the latter, Mr Thomas said that, whilst agreeing that UEA had faced a significant rise in FOIA requests in July 2009, he did not consider that a total of 61 was a “huge number”.
Wonderful research JohnZ ^.^
Lucy
I agree with everything you say.... totally.
However I think we should allow Zedbed to keep posting and practise how we can make life unbearable for his sort without being offensive.
Personally I think all his posts should be answered by a request to share his knowledge of the proof that CO2 causes current or significant warming and go from there.
Sep 6, 2010 at 11:59 PM
Thanks JohnZ.
"There are two issues here: the adequacy of CRU’s handling of the FOIA requests and whether the increase in the number of requests in July 2009 was a deluge. On the latter, Mr Thomas said that, whilst agreeing that UEA had faced a significant rise in FOIA requests in July 2009, he did not consider that a total of 61 was a “huge number”.
So there you are then Zippedydoodah. 61 FOI requests. Hardly a deluge.
What's your response to my other point? That proper scientists, who follow the proper scientific method, always release all their data so that it can be replicated and also so that others can see if there is anything wrong with it?
I don't see the timing of UEA's announcement at all odd. The Bishop announced the timing of his report, the UEA does another pre-emptive rebuttal a la Ward. They must be worried about something.
As for Zed, like most trolls, best left ignored. Amusing that he takes both his name and his science from pulp fiction though.
Phil Jones’s attitude to FOI is neatly summarised by his famous comment: “why should I give my data to you, when all you want to do is to find something wrong with it?”
Hardly an endorsement of scientific method, although no doubt Zed will have a prepared excuse...
Atomic Hairdryer Sep 7, 12.21pm "another pre-emptive rebuttal a la Ward." -
Aren't re-emptive rebuttals also one of Mann's specialities?
I've come a bit late to the discussion here, so this may have already been mentioned. The complete list of FOI requests to CRU can be found here:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_for_list_of_foi_requests
The 58 requests for confidentiality agreements were 'refused' because UEA put up this webpage: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ from which the agreements can be viewed. The FOI official at UEA simply directed those people who had submitted the FOI requests to the webpage (so it was a technical refusal, saying 'the data are available' - but these agreements had not been available before the FOI requests were made). Apart from finding the handful of agreements (which had been used to refuse requests for data) I can't see how much CRU scientists' time was involved in answering those 58 requests.