Monday
May302011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Nurse podcast
May 30, 2011 FOI The Guardian podcast features Paul Nurse on the subject of FOI. This is presumably the interview where Prof Nurse's made his rather extraordinary claims about harassment of scientists.
Reader Comments (31)
Here’s my quick transcript of the relevant bit:
“I think they [UEA scientists] weren’t used to intense public interest in their data, and so they weren’t simply, they didn’t have a culture to think about it, and I think part of the problem with UEA was that they were a little too secretive, they didn’t release the data quickly enough.
“But having said that, I think a much more significant problem is the potential to use mechanisms such as the Freedom of Information as an aggressive tool, and in the conversations I’ve had - I’m not a climate scientist myself but in the conversations I’ve had with those working there at the coalface (!) is that that is being used in exactly that way. There are many ways in which those who would like to upset the process or disturb people or make them feel uncomfortable - that the FOI - Freedom of Information - can be used in an aggressive way, for example making repeated requests for lots and lots of information that may be of actually very limited use, or maybe for drafts of papers that led up to final submissions. I’m hearing all sorts of things that I think we need to get to the bottom of. Freedom of Informmation is good if it’s being used to generate information that’s being kept secret, but it really isn’t good if it’s going to disrupt science and scientists, and perhaps even worse, intimidate them, and I think there’s a real risk and possibility of that”.
Note the “things that I think we need to get to the bottom of” - after three enquiries!
Geoff
At the coalface eh? This might explain a lot....
I think the only relevant thing said by Sir Paul Nurse that we can all agree on is, "I’m not a climate scientist myself".
Geoff - in the passage you quote, the 'things that I think we need to get to the bottom of' is clearly referencing abuse of the FOI system through vexatious requests.
Did you not understand that, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
Lets remember Phil Jones response when he was before the house of commons review 'I never be asked for my data before ' so its not just public interest in their data that was usual it was interest in the raw data the research claims where based on from fellow climate scientist they where unused to.
CRU just got fat and lazy on the back of pal-review and now its be asked to get on the public interest 'treadmill' its puffing for all its worth .
But let also remember that is was Jones and co that pimped themselves out to get the public interest in the first place, an interest they had no objection to when everything was going well for them , its only once the public started asking question Phil and co would rather they not that public interest became a problem.
ZBD: It is curious that research being quoted and used as a justification for de-industrialising the developed nations is subject to critcal scrutiny. Funny that.
Ah, Phil 'Indiana' Jones and The E-mail Of Doom " 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."
He'll never live that one down, no matter how much his reputation is Nursed.
Having read Geoff's transcript very carefully, the only claim he actually makes is that FOI is being used as an aggressive tool
What Paul fails to realise is that any FOI request, no matter what it is for, is an act of aggression since you are using force (the FOIA) to make the FOI target respond.
Everything else in the transcript is carefully worded so he doesn't actually say they are happening, only that the could happen.
Perhaps if they say what could happen often enough then like the "well funded by big oil" it will become accepted as reality without any evidence.
Rick
Well Nurse did say they were "a little too secretive". :-)
Yes, the 'get to the bottom of' quote is intriguing. You do wonder what the climategate inquiries is were for if they still need to get to the bottom of things.
Is Nurse hearing new 'things's or old 'things'. Were they vexatious before the inquiries of after the inquiries?
But climate scientists working at the coalface? That is a gift, thank you Paul!
I think I hear the sound of Josh at his drawing board. And await his next work with the usual great (and grateful) anticipation.
Keep em coming Josh. A picture paints a thousand words!
Re ZDB
Most of the 'vexatious' requests were for data or information needed to replicate or validate papers published by climate scientists. If SI's had been published with the papers, there would have been no need for the FOI requests. FOI becomes more of a challenge if there's a bunker mentality and an institutional desire to obstruct. If they're more open and publish data by default, then handling FOI becomes a lot simpler and can often simply refer people to a website with the SI or data. For climate science, it's also not just FOI they need to be following, but also the Environmental Information Regulations which give us a statutory right to publicly held environmental data and is broader than the FOI Act.
Do you not understand that climate scientists are not above the law, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?
"the sound of Josh at his drawing board"
The scrape of charcoal on dead trees...
Paul Nurse is effectively trying to operate as "President" of the "National Union of Scientists".
So with all the causes that he could come out with opinions he chooses Climate "Scientists" who basically acted like d*cks.
Why that "cause"?
Forget about secretiveness, and look at a Scientist's working life.
Scientists in more rigorous fields (almost all it seems) often have to follow long methodologies and work flows for their work to proceed. Without approved project milestones along the way their work is not validated. Form filling and archiving is a fact of life, even if those forms and data never get looked at ever again.
So why again are Climate "Scientists" being given an easy ride by Paul Nurse?
That to me says more than the actual words.
My response to whinging and whining and need for nappy changing the UEA would have been, "get over it, and count yourself lucky - try being a medical scientist or a materials scientist".
Nurse! He's doing it again!
Zed 11.08 AM
Yes, I did understand that he was talking about getting to the bottom of vexatious requests. He says in the previous sentence:
“There are many ways in which those who would like to upset the process or disturb people or make them feel uncomfortable - that the FOI - Freedom of Information - can be used in an aggressive way, for example making repeated requests ..”
There was only one example of repeated requests, and that was a few dozen or so from readers of Climate Audit who each asked for information on five countries after Jones refused to release the information because “some” countries (unnamed) had refused permission. Sir Paul, or Muir Russell, or just about anyone, could get to the bottom of this by mailing Steve McIntyre. Have they? Will they?
i wonder about senior scientists these days. They just cant wait to get stuck into the media, often in subjects outside their fields. get nominated as the next president of the royal society, right, get straight onto the BBC and pontificate in a documentary and 'defend' science (as he sees it). rees was the same. have you read any of his verbose books? i cant wait for paul nurse's book - there is bound to be one. why does the royal society need a press office anyway?
i suspect that the royal societies political influence behind the scenes has been waning since the dim days of lord may, and a higher media profile is seen as a reaction - another avenue of influence.
but what they gave done is a public service. whilst once they were hidden in ivory towers now we can all see that, brilliant scientists they may be, but as public people engaging in a wider debate they usually leave a lot to be desired, and are not any better than the rest of us.
Just after the bit I transcribed there is this exchange:
Alok Jha: I mean, there’s two ways to solve this I guess. One is to employ more administrators at universities to deal with these sorts of things and help scientists deal with the number of requests and you just have to swallow it as a part of democracy; or you tweak Freedom of Information legislation to suggest anything that looks like harrassment shuld be stopped. Where do you sit in that spectrum?
Sir Paul: Well, I’m certainly not an expert in this area and I’m hoping that this study that we’re looking at will give a lead on that. I think I would probably look more at tweaking it so that we can ensure that these requests are legitimate rather than simply hiring more bureaucrats and administrators. My starting position is always to try and avoid that. So I think it would be better to tweak the FOI so that it would work effectively as to what it’s meant to do, which is not to be an aggressive act, but simply to get hold of information, and see whether we can make progress there.
Good leading question from Alok, which Sir Paul lobs back from a “starting position” that the law should be changed - before he’s got to the bottom of it, before the Royal Society study reports - before doing anything in fact except give an interview to the Guardian about a subject he admits he knows little about.
Re: geoff
the Information Commissioner has already said what he thinks about the multiple requests from climate audit readers (emphasis mine):
It also seems to me that this response answers Paul Nurse's concerns.
It's interesting to look at the UEA page on WhatDoTheyKnow.com. I'm not sure any of the requests here make Nurse's case for him.
TerryS's quote makes it clear that the requests were not vexatious by any normal standards, and it has been clearly documented that Jones and others had planned to ignore or subvert the FOIA long before any of the requests came in. The continued use of the term by UEA "climate scientists" and their apologists such as Nursie and ZBD illustrates how far removed these people are from the real world, and what a poisonous bunker mentality they share.
I have served on public bodies and am quite sure that when they want to hide something it is because they have something to hide. You would have to be a child in arms to think otherwise.
Climate 'scientist' or not, Nurse's activism may spring from his 'overpopulation control' (=eugenical) tendancies: see
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece.
Sorry about the bad link, here is the page I referenced: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece
Let us be absolutely clear how many FOI requests the poor beleagured scientists at the UEA/CRU received from the date the law came in in January 2005:
2005 - 0
2006 - 0
2007 - 4
2008 - 2
2009 - 97
59 of the 2009 FOI requests were from people asking to see the contracts the CRU had with the varioius met offices and resulted because the CRU were telling people that they couldn't provide the data because of these contracts. This, in spite of the fact they'd provided the data in, I think 2009, to Peter Webster at Georgia Tech. The response had to be framed for only one of the requests, so no biggie there then.
15 others arrived between January 2009 and November 2009, I don't have to hand the content of these FOI requests.
The rest came after climategate.
So taking the roughly five year period from January 2005 to November 2009, and knowing that the response to the 59 from Steve McIntyre's attempt to get the raw data took only one reply, they received a grand total of 22 FOI requests. They are taking Sir Paul Enfield for a fool, and from his behaviour it would seem that it's not something that's difficult to do.
geronimo
Thanks for the details. Does anyone have the link for the Climate Audit thread where Steve (I think) suggested demanding data for countries five at a time?
The “repeated requests” fable is important because it’s used over and over on threads to suggest that we are some kind of stalkers. Sir Paul mentions “conversations I’ve had with those working there at the coalface” as his source of information. Will the Royal Society study he mentions be interviewing McIntyre and Holland to get their side of the story?
Sir Paul insists on the fact that he (and other scientists) must get out and meet the public. Presumably one day he will bump into Your Grace or another spokesman for scepticism in a media setting. It will be very interesting to see his reaction when he finally gets to the bottom of things.
I wouldn't advise Nurse to put in an appearance at "the coalface".
In my experience, miners can spot a pompous fool at a hundred paces.
Even in the dark.
Re: geoff
Try this: http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/
To be more specific, try this comment: http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-188533
Oops. It was this one: http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/#comment-188529
Complete transcript of the Guardian's interview with Sir Paul Nurse is here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20110530_gn
With many thanks to Geoff Chambers for supplying most of this.