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)
From the ICO's decision;
."I'm afraid that I'm not confident that the data that UEA releases will be the data that is being sought."
I thought they already produced the data for the information commissioner. It is going to be very hard to create a different set of data to hand over in that case.
-J
Then I guess they will suffer the ignomy of receiving a rather harshly worded letter!
Mailman
GSW. Also now been over to ICO site.Their powers include "criminal prosecution, non criminal enforcement and audit.
The IC also has the power to serve a monetary penalty notice on a data controler, upto £0.5m
Whether they would take such a route would depend on the history of the case (tick) and public interest (bigger tick, the future of the world apparently). The also say they are looking to set precedents.
The wording of the ICO ruling seemed fairly solid to me.
I am not so concerned anymore if the UEA/CRU want to stick two fingers up!
@James
I think you are correct, no additional "collation" should be required. The request was fairly specific to an already collated 'dataset'.
James, it is the Mann case in the US where all the data (e-mails) have already been submitted.
The data in this case is basically the same data that Phil Jones felt able to send to someone in the US about CRUTEMP, but declined to send to someone else citing all sorts of lame excuses, including the idea that the person was not a scientist.
Prof J Jones, a scientist, of Oxford University then requested the same info and was refused, exposing further double standards. His pursuit of this matter has been based on scientific principle, something CRU are not aware of
Thanks golf charley. Seems fairly solid to me as well. ;)
Golf Charley -
I am referring to the Information Commissioner letter in this case (linked at Cimate Audit). In that letter, the commissioner identifies the specific data set that was sent to Georgia tech. From the ruling:
"The only information that was sent was a
part of the station database that was used to develop CRUTEM3 was
sent to Georgia Tech around 15 January 2009. This part covered the
latitude zones 300 N to 40°5. It included monthly mean temperatures
for stations that reported regularly in this zone up to November 2008"
The information commissioner also discusses in depth an analysis of exactly how this data set could potentially be (or not be?) constructed via public data sources. The entire discussion is very specific about exactly what was requested. I don't see how UAE could now claim that it is really some other data set that was requested all along.
How could they say "yes MR. IC, we sent you data for review and did this analysis of that data set for you, BUT that really wasn't the data set in question all along..."
They are slippery, but not suicidal...
-J
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Bishop
Good, but they may still go ahead. No harm after all, as they will see it. Also, they will add their request to the currently unseen but doubtless growing demand for selective opt-outs of EU imposed legislation that I guess the sardonic view I think you will hold of that institution would lead you to support. Of course the first opt-out won't be over the environmental rules, it will be over something with Oomph - like that votes for prisoners thing that hit the headlines a few months back.
Golf Charley and others
I wonder where the money for all these court battles is going to come from. Also, I can't see that a fine is likely to hurt the UEA very much. They are, after all, mainly a branch of government, albeit with some outside funding as well. The fines they pay go to government so they then go cap in hand and ask for their money back. And get it, I expect, when they need it to provide some new-fangled support for green policies that they promote to government.
James sorry if I misundrstood you previously.
Ultimately, UEA (not UAE) have fired all their legal ammo to defend their position, lost on every count., and should now fire their legal advisors and refuse to pay the bill.
Prof J Jones filed his request to expose double standards.
I do not see that UEA could refuse any further reasonable request for info without incurring the wrath of ICO, which we now know has teeth to bite with. So if the right data is not supplied further FOI's will come flying in
If I was a UEA student I would begrudge paying my tuition fees, if this is how they are to be wasted, and might be tempted to enquire what part of my £9,000 tuition fees was wasted on this legal action? And back it up with an FOI for good measure, also requesting the identity of UEA's legal advisors!
"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. -- James P
My first thought was full, as in "full of their own importance" or in "bins full of rubbish" or in "full to excess."
This made page 3 of the Daily Telegraph today. Mann's sea level paper made page 9.
Now let us see, what we shall see!
A good day for open science I think, is CA getting access?
Interesting, very interesting......... thank you Prof J. Jones.
suggest people check out Climate Audit
So where are all the young, creative, rising climatological stars, age under forty, in all this? Cursory review reveals that not once, not ever, has a single one of these credentialed hacks so much as blinked an eye for raising fingers to the wind. As Cargo Cultists' Green Gang slinks to Shadow Land, what will Cock Robin do then, poor thing?
About March, 2006, I was writing on a blog about missing data, part extracts follow. I will be interested if these data strings appear. They are tied in with the Phil Jones letter to Nature that purported to show little UHI effect in East Australia, China & Russia. A lot of cold water has since flowed under the bridge.
"6. I have since asked Phil Jones from East Anglia for a copy of his selection of the original Australian data. He says “We no longer have the Australian station data we were using in the early 1980s. At that time we had a limited network.”
"7. In the MID-1980s (which was my time choice) there were abundant stations which were not used by Jones at all. Here is a list for which data were then available, but not used by Jones – not a full list, just a sample: Geraldton, Narrabri, Hay, Albany, Rottnest Island Lighthouse, Walgett, Deniliquin, Bourke, Cape Naturaliste Lighthouse, Coonabarabran, Echuca, Cooma, Moruya Heads Pilot Station, Omeo, Dubbo, Alice Springs, Gabo Island Lighthouse, Bathurst, Strathalbyn, Mt. Gambier, Yamba, Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse, Newcastle Signal Station, Cape Otway Lighthouse.
"8. These stations, when averaged from the 1880s to the mid 1980s, showed a temperature decline until about 1951. This decline was not used in Jones’s paper, which some would say ignited the greenhouse debate with its alarmist conclusions.
"9. These and many other Australian stations, averaged from 1951 to 1985 or so, showed a slight increase in temperature. Jones’s modelling was essentially post-1950."
@Geoff Sherrington
If you are not yet familiar with his work, I suggest you look at the comprehensive analyses that EM Smith made of available land temperature records. He blogs under the name "Chiefio". Among other things he discovered the huge reduction in the number of stations used in the land based temperature record from c6000 to c1200 worldwide. This change occurred around 1990. It created a significant pivot point upwards in the reported temperature record. Only about 200 stations were common to the pre 1990 and post 1990 periods.
It seems it is impossible to establish to what extent this change has corrupted the evidence because the data does not exist to make a parallel run of the pre and post 1990 period with identical stations. So post 1990 the temperature record depends on a largely different set of stations. Along the way, EM Smith also noted that all stations at higher altitude had been eliminated from the post 1990 station count. There was also a movement to those closer to sea level as well as being located at airports. He also noted a movement away from the poles towards the equator. The implication of these several changes can be imagined but not measured because the data does not exist to do the measurement. It seems to me, and I am not a scientist, to be the ultimate sin against the scientific process. In the business world you be sacked for such incompetence. Climate "science" obviously inhabits a world of its own and is a law unto itself.
During the enquiries, information was dragged out of the UEA that they used only c4000 stations in their pre-1990 records. I believe that the CRU Prof Jones was also uncertain about his ability to reproduce detailed results and records. It would not surprise me if, as a result of the painstaking and necessary pursuit of these FOI requests, it is discovered that the whole AGW hypothesis is built on sand.
Geoff Sherrington
The only data that will appear is that sought by Prof J. Jones, ie a copy of stuff about CRUTEMP.
If what you seek is not there, I would suggest a fresh FOI, particularly if you have concerns about which trends were in or out.
It would seem sensible that you keep Andrew Montford and Steve Macintyre informed of what you have requested so that UEA/CRU don't complain about multiple requests, and do check out the UK ICO site so you know your rights, in the event of a UEA refusal
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
What significance do Oldtimer's 2.25PM revelations of EM Smith's analyses have for the current Berkeley project?
@Ecclesiastical Uncle 3.14pm
That remains to be seen. I am unclear precisely which data set they are using and what their methodology will be. I expect it will be discussed at WattsUpWithThat.
EM Smith devised his own approach to analysing temperature data. He explains it here in this post from April 2010 - you need to read the comments as well as the original article for full explanation. Incidentally I had forgotten that Geoff Sherrington was a contributor to comments on EM Smith`s site.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/dmtdt-climate-change-by-the-monthly-anomaly/
His exploration of the data temperature sets turned out to be a fascinating journey of discovery. It revealed the changing thermometer count and the effects of splicing artifacts. He has raised questions that have not been satisfactorily answered by AGW advocates.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Old Timer
Many Thanks.
I am what I am, I fear -see above, and now find myself swimming in very deep water. I followed the link you provided and at the time of reading, thought I understood EM Smith's method. (But I could not read the captions on the x-axes of the graphs or the key on their right side because of low computer screen resolution.) I fear, however, that such understanding as I now retain is isolated in an abyss of ignorance of the alternatives.
I should have asked 'Do Oldtimer's revelations of EM Smith's analyses have any signigficance for the current Berkeley project?' and your first line would have been a complete answer. My apologies!
Still, how are the Berkeley people going to deal with the 1990 pivot point? It looks like they will have 2 sets of largely dissassociated data, one before and one after. Please don't attempt to answer.
There is one more thing, however, As an ex bureaucrat I crave answers that support decisions on policy, and EM Smith's conclusions seem admirably clear.: Do I have to worry about global warming? Not on the basis of this methodology applied to these figures. Good Oh!
:
Steve McIntyre has stated on a number of occasions that he doesn't believe that using the non-"value added" CRU measurements will make much of a difference to the global temperature trends. Since 90%+ of all temperature records are supplied by the GHCN, it is unlikely that the trend will be much different to that produced by other "temperature accountants" such as GISS.
That different teams of accountants should each get much the same result after looking through the same set of books should come as a surprise to nobody.
I think Steve' McIntyre's main belief is that CRU are reluctant to share data as they did not want the public to learn that they were being paid money for old rope.