Friday
Jul012011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Pearce on the new FOI disclosures
Jul 1, 2011 Climate: CRU FOI Fred Pearce has an article up about Jonathan Jones' successful attempt to get the CRUTEM data from UEA. He has interviewed Prof Jones in the process:
"I am extremely concerned about the apparent pattern of secrecy and evasion," he said. "My sole aim [in pursuing the case] is to help restore climate science to something more closely resembling scientific norms."
Reader Comments (72)
That last line sounds like UEA doesn't intend to appeal the ICO ruling. But what hypocrisy lies in that last sentence.
==============
I trust my intuition and my scientific background ............... when I read the article it makes me feel very happy.
Another important turning point has been defined and it will lead to great things for all of us. The vested interests and "peer club scientists" are "on the hook" for sure ..................... thank goodness for enquiring minds!
Excellent to see a 'hard' scientist challenging the soft 'scientists' of climatology and winning.
As a precedent for future FoI demands, this should have all UK based climatologists quaking in their boots. There really is no hiding place for them any more.
Just to be clear, Jonathan Jones is a professor, so "Prof Jones" is not Phil Jones.
The UEA said: "We have nothing to fear from scrutiny; we are committed to openness and transparency in our research... and we fully intend to make all data publicly available as soon as possible."
Don't think that everybody working at UEA feels the same way somehow...
Yeah, Prof Phil Jones is extremely unlikely to have made any of the above statements.
Prof. J. Jones has a nice note at CA regretting that Don Keiller has been pretty much ignored.
================
Whilst the are rumaaging around for all this data, any chance they might find the missing stuff for P. Jones 1990 Nature paper on UHI, allegedly eaten by the dog?
What's this? A government appointed 'independent' body that dares to challenge the mantra of the ruling establishment? Crisis. Cobra. Nurse. Beddington. Oxburgh. Acton. Slingo. Watson. Emergency counter-legislation...
From CA
I hope you don't have a Shell rewards card for when you buy petrol otherwise people will claim the ICO complaint was coordinated by "Big Oil" funding.
Actually my "interview" with Fred Pearce began and ended with my saying that he should read my comments at CA and then get back to me if he had any questions. He didn't, so the whole article is taken from my written comments - not that I have any complaints, it's a fair enough summary.
I have just been contacted by AP who will presumably run something. I told them that they really must speak to Don, and they said that they would email him. If anyone knows him, perhaps they could poke him to read his email soon?
Wow Fred Pearce does not state that he blagged his article off Climate Audit, but his link "Steve Macintyre" (dunno how to do links) links to all the recent posts there.
Guardinistas will not be happy!
"We have nothing to fear from scrutiny; we are committed to openness and transparency in our research."
A Nd yet this judgement cam about because they failed to do this , UEA clearly have no concept of irony. as well has honor.
@golf charley, for the avoidance of doubt, I told Pearce that he could use that CA comment as a source. And I don't think he says anywhere that he interviewed me? It's a very carefully phrased article, and this isn't a case of Hari-gate or anything of that kind.
Jonathan Jones, yes noted, I went back and reread his article!
Thanks again for all of your work, tolerance and patience.
Can climate science be saved if it takes this much effort to gain public access to policy relevant data?
Now at the Washington Post. Don's existence is hinted at but he is not identified by name - I guess the US media are very keen on fact checking and couldn't get through to him in time.
"We have nothing to fear from scrutiny; we are committed to openness and transparency in our research"
Assuming that the spokesperson who uttered these words, is still with us; how did he/she not choke on them. They have no shame, in my opinion.
Christopher Graham strikes me as heroic. I would wager that making this decision has cost him some personal suffering. Jonathan Jones has made a brave stand for the integrity of science and probably brought some suffering upon himself. Personal sacrifice of this sort is necessary to restore integrity to climate science. Let us pray that Graham and Jones find their suffering greatly diminished in the near future.
UEA main website press release archive makes no mention of this matter, but they have an article predicting the coalition won't last the full term.
Clueless in Norwich
The Washington Post!
Oxford College Wine Cellars, then.
Mac - Can climate science be saved if it takes this long for ANY mainstream media to pick up on the story?!
From the post article:
"It (University of East Anglia) added that its attitude had changed since the Freedom of Information requests were first refused back in 2009."
Really? And here I thought all the back and forth nonsense with the information commissioner was recent. Sounds like their attitude has changed since the ruling back in late June 2011.
J
Finally !! A proper scientist gets involved.
Well done Prof Jones.
The Oz media is running hard with this story.
Not.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
I have the same fears as Pharos 7.59pm
Nurse and Bennington will be having quiet words in the corridors of power, I do not doubt. They will not try for anything dramatic, just a bit of insignificant legislation tacked on to the tail end of something rather more dramatic that will enable the regulations under the FOIA to be (in)appropriately amended.
His worship, the Blair, I believe, confessed to regret over his headlong plunge into this particular peice of virtue and so support should not be too difficult to mobilize. It will not be difficult to persuade the government they do not need to have time wasted as a result of the FOIA, particularly at the present if it is dressed up as an austertity measure.
Remember, that the original US FOI act was a direct fallout of Watergate
"we fully intend to make all data publicly available as soon as possible"
Why not say "we will"?
They're setting themselves up to find some "my dog ate it" excuse.
Ecclesiastical Uncle
Most of the requests to UEA have been under the Environmental Information Regulations rather than the FOI Act. This is European legislation and thus rather more difficult to change.
All scientific advice, interpretation and data that impacts on public polciy should be publicly and freely available.
If barriers or stops are put in place to public access of science then all that does is create suspicion that activism, advocacy and ideology is driving the debate.
When you add criticism of the science, scepticism, to suspicion of how the debate over policy is being driven then you create outright hostility.
People like Nurse and Beddington can argue blue in the face about the consensus and the need to take action but nobody is going nowhere in this debate until climate science opens itself for public inspection and criticism.
@Golf Charlie
Attribution of quotes seems to be a thing of the past.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/another-body-floats-by/
Pointman
"we fully intend.."
That's PR-speak for "we are looking for any excuse to avoid.."
It's roughly equivalent to Prime Ministers saying 'they fully support' a doomed colleague - there seems to be a particular nuance of the word 'fully' that means the exact opposite.
The data will never be released. If it were, the game would be over for too many people.
Nicholas Hallam, and if they do not release the data, what are the legal consequences?
Anyone?
It must be obvious that the default position of an institution would be not to release anything. A refusal requires less time, the same reasons can be used that were used on the last one and most importantly, nothing that will be good for the institution is likely to flow from a release.
Can anyone really imagine that the "keepers" could expect the result of a release to be the revelation that "this stuff is even better than we realized?" "The guys at this institution are really sharp."
Assuming that this is the default position, the position of the FOI authorities should counterbalance this approach, and also by default.
"Oxford academic wins right to read UEA climate data"
Is there some nuance to the word "read"? Presumably, the data can be;
1. Distributed to other interested parties, the M & M's for example.
2. Verified, and criticisms(or otherwise) of the methodology/robustness of UEA's work made public?
"right to read" implies something other than unencumbered use.
Golf Charley, my bet is that they will find that the data files and all their backups have been corrupted - which perhaps is not far from the truth.
I'm afraid that I'm not confident that the data that UEA releases will be the data that is being sought. I anticipate that the data release will be the *letter* of the request rather than the *spirit* of the request.
The UEA will claim that it has satisfied the request but will withhold data which is pertinent to the *intent* of the request - sufficient, complete access to data such that the *ability* to check and replicate the work of the UEA is met.
The process will begin again, with new requests, new complaints to the ICO and new rulings demanding that the UEA meet its obligations. The UEA is *not* committed to openness and transparency. Claiming it doesn't make it so, and the proof of the pudding is already in front of us. It has been for a long time.
@Simon
I must admit I agree. They do have a few weeks to think up an alternative strategy as you suggest. It would be rather naive to think that they were actually using the time to collate the information in any useful form as requested.
It does seem to be the CAGW way though, repeating claims for this, that and other (no matter how absurd) seems to be the order of the day. Someone, somewhere will believe you ;)
If the released data is inadequate or incapable of reproducing the CRU temperature record, should I presume be established quite quickly, by specialists from this and other sites.
If the data is not able to do what it is supposed to do, how long is it before courts get involved, with contempt charges, and someone ends up in HMP Norwich until the matter is resolved?
@golf charley
Nobody is going to end up in prison. The issue is essentially one of trust. Are the assumptions and adjustments made by CRU to the raw data, fair? In all this, it is the "not knowing" that is the problem.
"Trust me I'm a scientist" as a methodology, is well, "unscientific".
And 'Trust me I'm a Climate 'Scientist'' seems to be close to a contradiction in terms.
How did the noble cause of Science fall so low?
GSW thanks for the response, but what I am trying to ascertain is whether it is possible for UEA/CRU to stick two fingers up, repeatedly, without anyone, ever, suffering any legal consequences?
Is UK and EU FOIA legislation completely toothless?
At least in the US, via a different legal route, Mann's data is supposedly coming out of the closet, because ultimately, someone would have faced the state pen.
If the UK has no such sanction, I would agree, that the most CRU are going to suffer is a repetive strain injury, from sticking two fingers up, on too regular a basis
I suppose I should really know better than I do what consequences lay ahead for the CRU if they continue to fail to meet their FOI requirement. I'm not hawkish when it comes to UK FOI law, its application and its abuse.
I have no idea if there is any other public body in the UK which has gone further (and consequently been met with the full weight of any ICO legal lumphammer) than the UEA has so far to date. Can someone help fill us all in? Who, if anyone, has been more stupid than the UEA?
@golf charley
It would appear so I'm afraid, they're teflon. Although, I believe failure to comply with this ICO ruling, in any material respect, will be considered "contempt of court" (someone correct me if I am wrong).
So the next few weeks will be interesting! ;).
Who has been more stupid over FOI? Our own honourable MP's about their expenses!
That relied on an insider leaking data in the end, so no similarity at all.
I suppose, if a judge instructs a witness "answer yes or no or be held in contempt of court," and the witness refuses to respond with anything other than "mebbe," this would become problematic for the witness.
We do indeed live in interesting times!
GSW, I am no lawyer, but I do not think the ICO is a "court" with the power to deem that someone is in contempt
However if it reaches a court, a magistrate can deem someone to be in contempt, ie a witness refusing to give evidence, and send them down
If someone fails to comply with the ICO's decision, is there a referral process to a court?
@golf charley
Sorry charley, I'm sure I read this somewhere - will look now.
OK, just been back to Climate Audit and read the covering letter from ICO to Prof J Jones. Final paragraph states they can take legal action if the matter is not resolved, presumably to the good Prof's satisfaction.
Natue of such action not specified, and a caveat saying they are not obliged to take any action