# The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

Not Your Usual Take in the Climate Debate...

Home • About Omniclimate •
• 

## Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion

24 11 2009 (a guest blog by Willis Eschenbach, originally posted to the Climate Sceptics mailing list. Published almost completely as-is ). An excerpt for those without time to read it all the issue is not Trenberth or scientists talking smack. It is t he illegal evasion of legitmate scientific requests for data needed to replicate a scientific study . Without replication, science cannot move forwards. And when you only give data to friends of yours , and not to people who actually might take a critical look at it, you know what you e nd up with? A “consensus” ... Freedom of information, my okole... by Willis Eschenbach People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. G avin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trail s. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency. Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists attack the work by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science. This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the ver y idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct. As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data that they Page 1 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/built the global temperature record out of. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I

am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong int erest in the weather. I’m not “directed” by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards. The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an amazing insight into the attempt by Steve McIntyre, myself, and others from CA and elsewher e to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at the CRU. We wanted the data that was used t o make the global temperature record that is used to claim “unprecedented” global warming. I want to give a chronological account of the interactions. I will reference the email numbers so that people can see the entire emails if they wish. While we don’t know if all of these emails are valid, the resea rchers involved such as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann that clearly indicate that they think they are authent ic. The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, a climate rese archer who had previously been in cordial contact with Phil Jones, the lead researcher of the CRU. I find only one email in the archive (0969308954) where Phil emails Warwick, from 2000. This is in response to s ome inconsistencies that Warwick had found in Phil’s work: Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September ’04: Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on), Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid point anomalie s in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file map showing the grid cells barr en of stations greyed out. You said this was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and numbered grid points. [1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have large r anomalies than the parent cells !!!!????? This must be explained. [2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid cells with no stati ons, like cancer. [3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into its western neighbour. I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening. Best regards, Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF) Phil to Warwick, same email: Warwick, I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I see w hat boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot produce larger anomal ies than neighbours (larger values in a single month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are talking about larger trends then that is a dif ferent matter. Trends say in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at lea st 10 months Page 2 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24 years in thi s period that missing values

in some boxes influence trend calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe. Warwick, Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t produce lar ger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have this I can check to see what ha s happened and answer (1). As for (2) and (3) we compared all stations with neighbour s and these two stations did not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not a round much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of stations that you’ve compa red Olenek and Verhojansk with I would appreciate that. Cheers Phil OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a scientific work, no problem. But as he found more inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005 War wick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature r ecord. Phil Jones famously replied: Subject: Re: WMO non respondo ... Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ... Cheers Phil Hmmm ... not good. Science can only progress if there is a free exchange of scientific data. The scientific model works like this: A scientist makes claims, and reveals the data and methods he use d to come to his conclusions. 1. Other scientists who don’t agree attack the claim by (inter alia ) seeing if they can replicate the result, using the first scientist’s data and methods. 2. If the claims cannot be replicated, the claim is adjudged to be fa lse. 3. Obviously, if the data or the methods are kept secret, the claims cannot be verified. Attacking other scientist’s claims is what what scientists do. This adversar ial system is the heart of science. When I found out about this, I couldn’t believe it. I thought, a scientist can’t do that, can they? So I wrote to CRU on September 8, 2006, saying: I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used in t he preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data for those sta tions. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead author for the temperature average i s Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit. Many thanks, Willis Eschenbach I got no response from Phil Jones or anyone at CRU. So I filed a Free dom of Information act request Page 3 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Now at this point, let me diverge to what was happening at CRU during t his time. The first reference

to Freedom of Information in their emails is from 2005, before they had received a single request. Immediately, they start to plan how to evade requests should some come in: Tom Wigley, Former Director CRU, to Phil Jones, 21/01/2005 Phil,

... I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you check this for me (and S arah). [snip] Thanks, Tom. Phil replies to Tom: Tom,

... On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do re programs or data. Like all things in Britain w e will only find out when the first person or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI Act in Britain. I don’t think UEA really knows what’s involved. As you’re no longer an employee I would use this argument if anything comes a long. I think it is supposed to mainly apply to issues of personal information – ref erences for jobs etc. [snip] Cheers Phil So the coverup starts immediately, even before the first request. “I wouldn’t tell anyone about the FOI act in Britain”. Tom to Phil Phil, Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it wa s prepared by UEA so they may have simplified things. From their wording, computer code would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah is/was still employe d by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only written one tenth of the code and relea se every tenth line.

... Tom You can see how they plan to observe the spirit of the FOI Act. Phil to Tom Tom,

... Page 4 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will l ikely be paid by

Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with t hem. Cheers Phil Phil Jones has just gotten the news, and immediately he starts to plan how he is going to hide from an FOI request. The next email (1109021312) is later in 2005: At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann : Mike,

... Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents ever ything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for year s. 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 t o enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first re quest will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wi gley 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. IPRshould 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 So now we have two more ways for Phil to hide from the FOI Act ... al ong with a threat to delete the data rather than release it. Mann replies to Jones: Thanks Phil, Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very caref ul in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he esta blished that directory so that Tim could access the data. Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellect ual property rights issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in t he U.S.... mike Next, from February 05. Jones to Mann, cc to Hughes and Bradley (co-authors of the “hockeystick” study) Page 5 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/From: Phil Jones:

To: mann Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005 Cc: “raymond s. bradley”, “Malcolm Hughes” Mike, Ray and Malcolm,

... Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! Cheers Phil PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU sta tion temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Informati on Act ! The first rule of the Freedom of Information act ... nobody talks about the Freedom of Information Act. With that as a prologue, let me return to my FOI request. On Februa ry 10, 2007, I received my reply from Mr. Dave Palmer of CRU: Dear Mr. Eschenbach FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST (F OI_07- 04) Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below. The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) page withi n US National Climate Data Centre website provides one of the two US versions of the global dataset and includes raw station data. This site is at: http://www.ncdc. noaa.gov/ oa/climate/ ghcn -monthly/ index.php This page is where you can get one of the two US versions of the global da taset, and it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from this site. Datasets named ds564.0 and ds570.0 can be found at The Climate & Global Dyna mics Division (CGD) page of the Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL) a t the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) site at: http://www.cgd. ucar.edu/ cas/tn404/ Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Cl imate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis. The latter, NCAR site holds the raw station data (including temperature, but other variables as well). The GHCN would give their set of station data (with adjustments for all the numerous pr oblems). They both have a lot more data than the CRU have (in simple station numbe r counts), but the extra are almost entirely within the USA. We have sent all our data to GHCN, so they do, in fact, possess all our data. Page 6 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this let ter acts as a

Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below Exemption Reason s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means Some infor mation is publicly available on external websites I was outraged. So the next day, I made a second request: Dear Mr. Palmer: Thank you for your reply (attached below). However, I fear that it is totally unresponsive. I had asked for a list of the sites actually used. While it may (or may not) be true that “it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from [GHCN]“, t his is meaningless without an actual list of the sites that Dr. Jones and his team used. The debate about changes in the climate is quite important. Dr. Jones ’ work is one of the most frequently cited statistics in the field. Dr. Jones has re fused to provide a list of the sites used for his work, and as such, it cannot be replicated. Repli cation is central to science. I find Dr. Jones attitude quite difficult to understand, and I find your refusal to provide the data requested quite baffling. You are making the rather curious claim that because the data “appea rs” to be out on the web somewhere, there is no need for Dr. Jones to reveal which stat ions were actually used. The claim is even more baffling since you say that the original data used by CRU is available at the GHCN web site, and then follow that with the st atement that some of the GHCN data originally came from CRU. Which is the case? Did CR U get the data from GHCN, or did GHCN get the data from CRU? Rather than immediately appealing this ruling (with the consequent negati ve publicity that would inevitably accrue to CRU from such an action), I am again requesting that you provide: 1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and 2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is availa ble. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of eac h site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR. I find it somewhat disquieting that an FOI request is necessary to force a scientist to reveal the data used in his publicly funded research ... is this truly the standard that the CRU is promulgating? Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Willis Eschenbach On April 12, 2007, I got my second reply: In regards the “gridded network” stations, I have been informed that the Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed

Page 7 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/principally from data available on the two websites identified in my letter of 12 March

2007. Our estimate is that more than 98% of the CRU data are on thes e sites. The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of dat a CRU has collected from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pas s on the raw station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data i n our gridding, and these station data are included in our gridded products, which are availa ble from the CRU web site. These NMS-supplied data may only form a very small perc entage of the database, but we have to respect their wishes and therefore this i nformation would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorologic al Organization has a list of all NMSs. That didn’t help one bit. Without knowing which data was used, it was mea ningless. They’ve tried s.21, they’ve tried s.41, neither exemption applies. So the next day, I r eplied: While it is good to know that the data is available at those two web sites, that information is useless without a list of stations used by Jones et al. to prepa re the HadCRUT3 dataset. As I said in my request, I am asking for: 1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and 2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is availa ble. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of eac h site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR. Without knowing the name and WMO number of each site and the location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Service), it is not possibl e to access the information. Thus, Exemption 21 does not apply – I still cannot access the data. I don’t understand why this is so hard. All I am asking for is a simpl e list of the sites and where each site’s data is located. Pointing at two huge piles of da ta and saying, in effect, “The data is in there somewhere” does not help at all. To clarify what I am requesting, I am only asking for a list of the stations used in HadCRUT3, a list that would look like this: WMO# Name Source 58457 HangZhou NCAR 58659 WenZhou NCAR 59316 ShanTou GHCN 57516 ChongQing NMS etc. for all of the stations used to prepare the HadCRUT3 tempera ture data. That is the information requested, and it is not available “on non-UEA websites”, or anywhere else that I have been able to find. I appreciate all of your assistance in this matter, and I trust we can get it resolved satisfactorily. Page 8 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Best regards,

I received another letter, saying that they could not identify the locat ions of the requested information. I wrote back again, saying: Dear Mr. Palmer: It appears we have gone full circle here, and ended up back where we s tarted. I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce the HadCR UT3 dataset to be posted up on the UEA website, or made available in some other form. You refused, saying that the information was available elsewhere on non -UEA websites, which is a valid reason for FOI refusals. I can report that the information requested is not available on non-UEA websites as detailed below. Your most recent letter (Further _information_ letter_final_ 070418_rev01. doc ), however, says that you are unable to identify the locations of the request ed information. Thus, the original reason for refusing to provide station data for HadCRU T3 was invalid. Therefore, since the information requested is not available on non-UEA websites, I wish to re-instate my original request, that the information itself be made available on your website or in some other form. I understand that a small amount of t his data (about 2%, according to your letter) is not available due to privacy requests from the countries involved. In that case, a listing of which stations this applies to w ill suffice. The HadCRUT3 dataset is one of the fundamental datasets in the curr ent climate discussion. As such, it is vitally important that it can be peer r eviewed and examined to verify its accuracy. The only way this can be done is for the data to be made available to other researchers in the field. Once again, thank you for your assistance in all of this. It is truly not a difficult request, and is fully in line with both standard scientific practice and your “C ODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESPONDING TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 ′′ . I am sure that we can bring this to a satisfactory resolution without involving appeals or unfavorable publicity. My best regards to you,

w. Here is the response from 27 April: Dear Mr. Eschenbach FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORM ATION REQUEST (FOI_07-04) Further to your email of 14 April 2007 in which you re-stated your request to see “a list of stations used by Jones et al. to prepare the HadCRUT3 da taset” I am asking for: 1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and 2) A clear indication of where the data for each sit e is available. This is quite Page 9 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMA

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/important, as there are significant differences between the vers ions of each site’s data at

e.g. GHCN and NCAR.” In your note you also requested “the name and WMO number of each site and t he location of the source data (NCAR, GHCN, or National Met Servic e)”, I have contacted Dr. Jones and can update you on our efforts to resolve this matter. We cannot produce a simple list with this format and with the inform ation you described in your note of 14 April. Firstly, we do not have a list consisting sole ly of the sites we currently use. Our list is larger, as it includes data not used due to incomplete reference periods, for example. Additionally, even if we were able to creat e such a list we would not be able to link the sites with sources of data. The station data base has evolved over time and the Climate Research Unit was not able to keep multiple versions of it as stations were added, amended and deleted. This was a consequence of a lack of data storage in the 1980s and early 1990s compared to what we have at our disposal currently. It is also likely that quite a few stations consist of a mixture of sources. I have also been informed that, as the GHCN and NCAR are merely databases, the ultimate source of all data is the respective NMS in the country where the station is located. Even GHCN and NCAR can’t say with precision where they got their data from as the data comes not only from each NMS, but also comes from scie ntists in each reporting country. In short, we simply don’t have what you are requesting. The only true sourc e would be the NMS for each reporting country. We can, however, send a list of a ll stations used, but without sources. This would include locations, names and lengths of record, although the latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series. This is, in effect, our final attempt to resolve this matter informally. If this response is not to your satisfaction, I will initiate the second stage of our inter nal complaint process and will advise you of progress and outcome as appropriate. For your information, the complaint process is within our Code of Practice and can be found at: http://www1. uea.ac.uk/ polopoly_ fs/1.2750! uea_manual_ draft_04b. pdf Yours sincerely David Palmer Information Policy Officer Universit y of East Anglia I loved the story line in this one “we do not have a list consisting sol ely of the sites we currently use”. Say what? How do they produce updates that change the temperature all the way back to 1870? But I digress ... So I advised him that I was appealing. His letter was passed to a Ms. Kitty Inglis, who replied May 21, 2007, Decision of Information Commissoners’ Office FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 – INFORMATION REQUEST (F OI_07- 04) Dear Mr Eschenbach Following David Palmer’s letter of 27th April 2007 to you regarding your dissa tisfaction with our response to your FOI request of 25th January 2007, I have undertaken a Page 10 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/thorough review of the contents of our file and have spoken with both Mr. Pal mer and

Professor Jones. As a result of this investigation, I am satisfied that we have done all we can to fulfil [sic] your request and to provide you with the information you require where it is pos sible for us to do so. I confirm that we are able to make available on the Climatic R esearch Unit website a list of stations, including name, latitude, longitude, elevation and WMO number (where available). We are unable to provide a simple list of sources for these stati ons as we do not hold this information. Nor do we hold the raw (i.e. unadjusted) station data, as you describe it, at UEA. As stated in prior letters to you, raw station data are a vailable on the NCAR and GHCN websites and gridded data are available on the Climatic Re search Unit website. If these data are insufficient for your requirements, you will need to c ontact the NMS for the country in which the station is located to obtain the information you re quire. I hope you are able to accept this response. We have contacted the Infor mation Commissioner’s Office in relation to this matter and their advic e is that if you are still dissatisfied with this response, you can, at this time, exercise your right of appeal to the Information Commissioner by contacting them at: Information Commissioner’ s Office Wycliffe House At that point, I let it go. I had a small victory, we got a list of the stations. It took me a couple more letters to actually get them to post the list. But nothing else. Meanwhile, behind the scenes at CRU, I now find out that they were c ircling the wagons ... what follows are their internal discussions about a series of FOI reque sts from myself, Steve McIntyre, Doug Keenan and others to CRU for various data. Phil Jones to Tom Keenan and Wei-Chyung Wang, 6/19/2007: Wei-Chyung and Tom,

... 1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA reques ts if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit. 2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. [EMAIL NOT FOUND IN CRU EMAILS – Willis] He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites. 3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo. Cheers Phil Well, that explains a few things ... they’ve managed to “persuade UEA t o ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.” I hadn’t noticed that exemption in the FOI documentation I’d seen. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that’s l egal, and it definitely isn’t ethical. I note that they are circling the wagons in Australia as well ... Page 11 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Phil Jones to Thomas Peterson of NOAA, 6/20/2007 AM (1182342470) :

Tom P. Just for interest. Don’t pass on. Might be a precedent for your paper to J. Climate when it comes out. There are a few interesting comments on the CA web site. One says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct, not for Keenan to prove we’re wrong. Interesting logic

. Cheers Phil Wei-Chyung, Tom, I won’t be replying to either of the emails below [FROM STEVE MC INTYRE AND DOUG KEENAN], nor to any of the accusations on the Climate Audit website. I’ve sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we should be discussing anything with our legal staff. The second letter see ms an attempt to be nice to me, and somehow split up the original author team. I do now wish I’d never sentthem the data after their FOIA request! Cheers Phil He obviously views sending data in response to an FOIA request as optional. Thomas Peterson to Jones, same email: Fascinating. Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Phil. I won’t pass it on but I will keep it in the back of my mind when/if Russ asks about appropriate responses to CA requests. Russ’ view is that you can never satisfy them so why bother to try? Again, responding to an FOIA request is viewed as optional. Phil Jones :

... PS to Gavin – been following (sporadically) the CA stuff about the GISS data and release of the code etc by Jim. May take some of the pressure of you soon, by rel easing a list of the stations we use – just a list, no code and no data. Have agreed t o under the FOIA here in the UK. Oh Happy days! So ... that’s why I only got the station list and not the data, just to ta ke the pressure off. Thanks, Phil. Jones to Bradley and Amman, 5/9/08 (1210341221): Mike, Ray, Caspar, Page 12 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/A couple of things – don’t pass on either.

... 2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person [DAVID HOLLAND – Willis] who is putting in FOI requests for al l emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a w ay around this. Finding ways around FOI requests seems to be a popular sport. This is i n reference to Steve trying to get the review comments to Chapter 6 of the UN IPCC Fourth Assess ment Report. Next, here’s the brilliant way that they found around the FOIA, a bombshe ll of an idea, Jones to Michael Mann, 29 May 2008 (1212063122): Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith w ill do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

... Cheers Phil Again, call me crazy, but deleting evidence in the face of an FOI request must be illegal. Gene is Eugene Wahl. Of course, what these guys don’t realize is that there are multiple copies of most emails floating around. In some ways, I hope they deleted them, so that it can be proven. Tim Osborne to Jones, Briffa, and Mann, 23 Jun 2008 (1214229243) : Subject: Re: CA Hi Phil, Keith and “Confidential Agent Ammann”, At 17:00 21/06/2008, P.Jones wrote: This is a confidential email So is this. Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the responses and l etters up. There are three threads – two beginning with Fortress and a third later one. Wort h saving the comments on a Jim Edwards – can you do this Tim? I’ve saved all three threads as they now stand. No time to read al l the comments, but I did note in “Fortress Met Office” that someone has provided a link to a website that helps you to submit FOI requests to UK public institutions, and subsequently someone has made a further FOI request to Met Office and someone else made one to DEFRA. If it turns into an organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtai n useful information, then we may be able to decline all related reque sts without spending ages on considering them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign. Page 13 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Tim

Another thing to hide behind, a false claim of an “organised campaign” ... Phil Jones: To: Gavin Schmidt Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008 Cc: Michael Mann Gavin,

... Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Re ading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond – advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just betwe en us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations . It seems he doesn’t want to have to deal with this hassle. The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hol d relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims e tc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on. Cheers Phil So now the Information Commissioner is in on the deal, s/he’s advising t hem to use the same exceptions not to respond. Next, Ben Santer chimes in: to Thomas Karl, Karen Owen, Sharon Leduc , “Thorne, Peter”, Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley, John Lanzante, Susan Solomon, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , “‘Philip D. Jones’”, Thomas R Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears , Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Steven Sherwood, Frank Wentz, “David C. Bader”, Professor Glenn McGregor, “Bamzai, Anjuli” Dear Tom,

... My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive a nd unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or expla nation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strat egy to divert my attention and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike M ann and Phil Jones have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followe d by further requests for computer programs, additional material and explanations, etc., et c. Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am unwil ling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre . The supreme irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rathe r than the Douglass Page 14 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et

al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reache d incorrect conclusions on the basis of that flawed test. I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific unders tanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our scientific research wit hout constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of cli mate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my sci entific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email c orrespondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the sci entific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL’s Legal Affairs Office in order to de termine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre . I assume that such requests will be forthcoming. I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my im mediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headqua rters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of our paper at IJoC). I’d be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I’m sorry tha t the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today’s event s, I must assume that any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s “ ClimateAudit” website. With best personal wishes, Ben Well, he got the last paragraph right, at least. He also thinks t hat an FOIA request must serve some “scientific justification”, as determined by ... well ... by the person receiving the request. Ben Santer to Tom Wigly, 12 Dec 07 (1228330629): At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Tom,

... One of the problems is that I’m caught in a real Catch-22 situation. At present, I’m damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he Page 15 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for cli mate model data, I’m

convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) tha t I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for f urther explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and writt en: “You see – he’s guilty as charged!” on his website. You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MS U issue, Tom. During much of that time, we’ve had to do science in “reactive mode”, responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglas s, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research agenda. I don’t want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Chris ty, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my lif e interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre. I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If t hey do not, I’m fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere. With best regards, Ben Dr. Santer, here’s a novel idea. Put enough information out when you publish t he work so that your work can be replicated. Put on the web whatever is necessary in the way of code, data, and methods to allow your work to be checked by someone else. If you do that, not only will you not be bothered, but you will be following the scientific method. None of us at CA are doi ng this to harass anyone, as you claim. We’re doing this because we cannot replicate your work, and thus your work is purely anecdotal rather than scientific. Phil responds (same email): Cc: mann , Gavin Schmidt, Karl Taylor, peter gleckler Ben, When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environm ental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with a ppeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but proba bly doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures. One issue is that these requests aren’t that widely known within the School. So I don’t know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up the ladder of requests at UEA though – we’re way behind computing though. We’re away of requests going to others in the UK – MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and Imperial College. So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be the f irst thing you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI. The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadi an, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! Page 16 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he

can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation is differe nt from the FOI – it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating ! In response to FOI and EIR requests, we’ve put up some data – mainly pa leo data. Each request generally leads to more – to explain what we’ve put up. Every ti me, so far, that hasn’t led to anything being added – instead just statements saying read wha t is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such response ( via the FOI person) earlier this week. We’ve never sent programs, any codes and m anuals. In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out in 2 weeks time. These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next year we’ll be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and amounts of grant s, papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of FOI requests you get should be another. When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of people. They will s tart on another coming out in The Holocene early next year. Gavin and Mike are on t his with loads of others. I’ve told both exactly what will appear on CA once they get access to it! Cheers Phil Well, that explains why David Palmer and Ms. Kitty Inglis, the Chi ef Librarian, were so unsupportive. Took a couple of half hour sessions, but at the end of that, rat her than being a representative of the FOI process, they were functioning as the pers onal representatives of Phil Jones. We have a new reason I hadn’t noticed in the FOI law for refusing a request, because the requester posts at CA. Jones to Ben Santer again, 10 Dec 2008: Ben, Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not e ntirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection A ct email. Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have be en at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’ s Office, IPCC is an international organization, s o is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Si r Humphrey here! McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but reque sts and responses all get posted up on CA regardless of who sends them. On observational data, there have been at least 5 including a couple from McIntyre. Others here came from Eschenbach and also Douglas Keenan. The latte r relate to WeiChyung Wang, and despite his being exonerated by SUNY, Keenan has not changed his web site since being told the result by SUNY! [1] http://www.informat h.org/ Page 17 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/The paleo data requests have all been to Keith, and here Tim and Kei th reply. The recent

couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at least two other s from Holland. So since Feb 2007, CRU is in double figures. We never get any thanks for put ting things up – only abuse and threats. The latest lot is up in the last 3-4 threa ds on CA. I got this email over the weekend – see end of this email. This re lates to what Tim sent back late last week. There was another one as well – a chatty one saying why didn’t I respond to keep these people on CA quiet. I’ve ignored both. Finally, I know tha t DEFRA receive Parliamentary Questions from MPs to answer. O ne of these 2 months ago was from a Tory MP asking how much money DEFRA has given to CRU over the last 5 years. DEFRA replied that they don’t give money – they award gra nts based on open competition. DEFRA’s system also told them there were no awar ds to CRU, as when we do get something it is down as UEA! I’ve occasionally checked DEFRA responses to FOI requests – all fr om Holland. Cheers Phil Since he and Mann and the others have already deleted their emails, l ooks like David Palmer was a bit too late with his excellent advice ... however, I did get a “Mentioned I n Dispatches”, at least ... Phil Jones to Raymond Pierrehumbert, 16 Jan 09 (1200493432): Cc: Michael Mann , Gavin Schmidt Ray,

... I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot. This is the last of them from March 26, 2007. I sent him a number of papers to read. He seems incapable of gra sping the concept of spatial degrees of freedom, and how this number can change according to timescale. I also told him where he can get station data at NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data, mainly because of McIntyre). I told him all this as well when we met at a meeting of the French Academy in early March.

... Cheers, Phil This is a very clear statement of what he has done. He has refus ed to release the data, not because there is any logical reason to do so, but “because of McIntyre”. This is shameful, and the fact that the Dave Peters and Kitty Inglis went along with this is dereliction of duty. Finally, Steven Schneider chimes in to write Ben from Stanford Unive rsity, 6 Jan 09 (1231257056): Cc: “David C. Bader”, Bill Goldstein, Pat Berge, Cherry Murra y, George Miller, Anjuli Bamzai, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia, Doug Rotman, Peter Thorne, Le opold Haimberger, Karl Taylor, Tom Wigley John Lanzante, Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, peter gleckler, “Philip D. Jones”, Thomas R Karl, Steve Klein, carl mears, Doug Nychka, Gavin Schmidt, Steven Sherwood, Frank Wentz “Thanks” Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar expe rience– but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution- - with Stephen McIntyre Page 18 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer code s for papers

published in Climatic Change. I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough inf ormation on their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capa ble can do their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious requirement to ha ve scientists document every line of code so outsiders could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in the business of producing software products for general cons umption and have no resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published, concurred–so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few ye ars ago. This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in my opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a fishing expedit ion to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of code–which exist in nearly all our kinds of c omplex work– and then assert that the entire result is thus suspect. Our best way to deal with this issue of replication is to have multiple independent author teams, with their own codes and data sets, publishing independent work on the same topics–like has been done on the “hockey stick”. That is how credible scientific replication should proc eed. Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is doing now, you disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so competent scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented personalized codes etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows their intent–to discredit papers so they have no “evi dentiary value in public policy”–what you resort to when you can’t win the intellectual battl e scientifically at IPCC or NAS. Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to inter national climate policy actions, We are witnessing the “contrarian battle of the bulge” now, and expect that all weapons will be used. Cheers, Steve PS Please do not copy or forward this email. Now, why would Dr. Schneider not want his email copied or forwarded ... pe rhaps because he is saying don’t follow the spirit of the law, do as little as you possibl y can? He also foolishly thinks that studies can be “replicated” by using different data and different codes ... but that says absolutely nothing about the original study and whether it contains any mistakes. The researchers complain in various places that they do not want to re veal their “primary data” because it is available on the web. While this is often true, as I saw in my FOIA requests to CRU, just saying “I got the information from X” is often totally inadequate. Sa nter made this charge, that anyone could go the CMIP website and get the data themselves ... but unless he says exactly which data from which run of which model, that information is meaningless. The main impression that I get from the emails is that the vari ous scientists think that I and others are simply doing this to harass them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no desire to put any scientist to any extra effort beyond providing what science requires – a full accounting of the data, the methods, and in some cases the computer code used to do the research. A nything more is harassment ... but anything less is scientific obstruction. Page 19 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/As I said, the issue is not Trenberth or scientists talking smac k. It is the illegal evasion of legitmate

scientific requests for data needed to replicate a scientific study. Without replication, science cannot move forwards. And when you only give data to friends of yours, and not to people who actually might take a critical look at it, you know what you end up with? A “consens us” ... REFERENCES: A Collation of CRU Correspondence, Stephen McIntyre, May 30, 2008, < http://www.climatea udit.org/ correspondence/ cru.corresponden ce.pdf >

« The CRU Hacking Song (With Apologies To George And Ira Gershwin) All That’s Wrong With Global Warming Advocates »



### Actions

• Comments RSS

• Trackback 

### Information Date : 2009/11/24 • Tags: Phil Jones , CRU , FOI , ClimateGate , Climate Audit • Categories : AGW , Climate Change , Culture , Data , Freedom , Global Warming , History , IPCC , Policy , Politics , Science • 

### 136 responses
10 03 2010 cmb (16:42:46) : You have to admit, hearing a self-admitted amateur scientist cla im that his intent is legitimate peer review is rather humorous. =) Speaking from a completely moral standpoint, and ignoring the information offi ce’s claim that the policies it suggested earlier to the scientists involved were actually illegal after the fact – why should scientists produce data for cranks? Certainly there is ver y little valid review of the science going on in the denialist sphere. Reply 31 01 2010 Willis Eschenbach’s FOI Request « Climate Audit (02:58:13) : [...] Willis Eschenbach’s account of his FOI request has been publis hed on other blogs (e.g. here ) but I’m re-publishing it because Willis actually sent it t o me first and the events all [...] Reply 18 12 2009 Page 20 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/A Change In Climate, Part 2 « ORBIS (18:34:11) :

[...] Willis Eschenbach’s “Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion” [...] Reply 17 12 2009 The Climate Modeling Leak: Code and Data Generating Published Results Must be Shared and Facilitate Reproducibility : Information Society Pr oject at Yale Law School (19:00:46) : [...] in Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, in particular thos e made by Willis Eschenbach, who tells his story of requests he made for underlying code and data up until the time of the leak. It appears that a [...] Reply 13 12 2009 A Change In Climate, Part 1 « ORBIS (08:28:06) : [...] To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency... The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an amazing insight into the attempt by Steve McIntyre, myself, and others from CA [C limate Audit] and elsewhere to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at the CRU... (Willi s Eschenbach, Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion) [...] Reply 8 12 2009 schumpeter (19:32:31) : I must say, after reading this, that I have much more sympathy with Jones et al. They were clearly being harassed by the likes of Eschenbach and McIntyre, who don’t a ctually demonstrate any understanding of the science or produce any scientific res ults themselves. There is no demonstration that any laws were broken, and even if Jones handled it badly, I can understand why he would want to get on with his work and deal with scientist s rather than boys. Reply 8 12 2009 omnologos (21:31:34) : schumpeter – harassment is usually lamented AFTER the fact. I do not know about McIntyre... however it would be nice to know if you have any basis for your accusations a gainst Eschenbach? Ironically, the idea of Jones wanting to “deal with scientists rat her than boys” sounds quite childish to me. Reply Page 21 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/8 12 2009 weschenbach (21:48:48) :

schumpeter (19:32:31) : I must say, after reading this, that I have much more sympathy with Jones et al. They were clearly being harassed by the likes of Eschenbach and McIntyre , who don’t actually demonstrate any understanding of the science or produce any scientific results themselves. There is no demonstration that any laws were broken, and even if Jones handled it badly, I can understand why he would want to get on with his work and deal wit h scientists rather than boys. Harrassed? I have harassed no one. I filed one FOIA request for his raw data. GHCN and GISS post their raw data on the web. Revealing your data and methods is PAR T OF EVERY SCIENTIST’S JOB DESCRIPTION. Yes, Jones would have been very ha ppy not to deal with people asking for some kind of scientific support for his claims ... but tha t’s what scientist’s do. They go around trying to knock down other people’s claims. And since the “scientists” Jones deal with seem to do nothing but pat each other on the back, of course Jones would rather deal with them rather than us bad boys who actua lly want to see some substance. Finally, before you say I’m not a scientist, you might want to take a look at my latest post at WUWT called The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero . I think it is an interesting tale of scientific malfeasance. Reply 7 12 2009 Reagan Vs. Obama First Term Polls. - Politics and Other Cont roversies - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third P arties, Left-Wing, RightWing, Congress, President - Page 3 - City-Data Forum (20:01:26) : [...] [...] Reply 3 12 2009 See No Evil: The Times Tries to Ignore the Global Warmist Sc andal « RES PUBLICA (04:24:59) : [...] 25, 2009 NRO Symposium, Climate of Fraud, NATIONAL REVIEW, November 25, 2009 Willis Eschenbach, Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Eva sion, The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE, November 24, 2009 David Derbyshire, Scie ntists in [...] Reply 1 12 2009 Page 22 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Victoria Stodden (04:15:56) :

[...] in Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, in particular thos e made by Willis Eschenbach, who tells his story of requests he made for underlying code and data up until the time of the leak. It appears that a [...] Reply 30 11 2009 Ferrand (20:50:14) : I think that it might be instructive if less notice be taken of possi ble physical changes in the condition of Earth, and more notice taken of possible biological and chemica l changes. It seems well documented that the Carbon Dioxide [CO2} content of the atmosphere has changed, is changing and will continue to change – in an upward direction. I make no comment on the cause of that change, but its biological and chemical effects, espe cially on Virus activity, may be much more important than any amount “warming” ?? Climategate, While the Earth’s atmosphere may or may not be warming due to Mankind, a nd Vicky Pope – whom I have known since she was but a gleam in her father’s eye – thi nks so, there may well be a much more immediate and universal peril confronting us. More to do w ith Chemistry and Biology than Physics. I suggest that one aspect of Science in connection with Climate Change has received scant attention so far see http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/climatechange_grunhausproject.pdf especially this Effects of CO2 on Mammalian Organisms Report of a Workshop, 5-6 June 1980, Bethesda, Maryland USA, published Dec 1982 by the US Dept of Energy, ref CONF-800249 (w ith disclaimer) 24 US and one European scientist attended. (Undersea Medi cal Society Inc, 9650 Rockville Pike,Bethesda, Maryland, 20014, USA). Page 10-3 possible effec ts on enzyme systems which are pH dependant ? Pages 10-6 to 10-13 Malignancies refer ence to lymphoma and mammary gland lymphoma effects. (12 references). Page 12-2 possible changes in blood pH. Acidity and pH is on a log scale, a small change can have a very lar ge chemical and physiological impact. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-ot her-problem-withcosub2sub-emission/ Re possible impacts with Virus proliferation due to CO2 induced increa sed atmospheric acidity if this is happening then there is a likely connection to what is happening in the Ukraine for instance see http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/blog/category/pandemic/ukraine/ It may be that our health could be more at risk from Climate Change than our warmth ? Reply 1 12 2009 Rational Debate (21:41:21) : Page 23 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Virus’s don’t replicate on their own – nor do they replicate in the atm osphere. They only

replicate once they are inside a biological organism’s cells. In other words, the atmosphere has no effect on virus replication, nor the enzymes involved. Those are all within the biological organism, all of which have incr edibly robust mechanisms to control pH. As to the Ukraine situation, even from the link you provided, the issue is mutation of the virus, not any atmospheric effect. Mutations occur as the virus replicates – again, within cells within highly pH controlled biological organisms. To try to extrapolate a supposed atmospheric acidification (where did you get that stretch??) to changes in viral replication reminds me of a story I saw once that is very indicative of a gross misunderstanding of science. A study was done putting sperm into test tube s with a particular herb. When the sperm didn’t fare well and started dying, the article trumpted how the herb may reduce human fertility. EXCUSE ME??? The conclusion is utterly abs urd and not at all supported by tne experiment itself. First, god knows what proportions were in that test tube – levels of something that can be optimal for growth can be highly deadly if too high, or also deadly if too low. Next, when a person ingests a herb, you first get huge transformations chemically, then thru digestion, then who knows what you have that actually ge ts into the bloodstream but its sure not the same as the raw herb. Then thru the bloodstream into select parts of the body and again a transformation there... then there’s the whole sperm generation process which the ingested herb may not have any effect on whatsoever... You c an NEVER extrapolate in vitro (out of the body, test tube, etc) results with i n vivo (in the body) results. NEVER. They’re totally different environments and processes. Same with the idea of viral replication – its in vivo. Atmospheric effects would be in vitro, so to speak. The very premise of any atmospheric acidification from higher CO2 le vels is awfully questionable, though. Our earths atmosphere is incredibly complex and there are all sorts of mechanisms that work to mainatin homeostasis – e.g., no significant c hange. There are a million different things that would interact and work to negate any pH cha nges. I’m quite certain that its far too complex for us to even accurately descri be, let alone assume that there’s some linear or direct link between increased CO2 and atmospheric ac idification. Remember one of the key rules of thumb in science: Correlation is NO T causation. If it were, then all we’d have to do to cut the human suicide rate in half would be m ake everyone drink at least two cups of coffee a day. Yes, there was a study many years ago that found that people who drink two or more cups of coffee a day are half as likely to commi t suicide as people who drank less than 2 cups. There are all sorts of other, probably even bett er, examples of correlations that are pretty clearly not indicative of any real ti e to the cause. Meanwhile, when it comes to CO2 there’s the question of whether CO2 has anything to do with temperature increases or whether the reverse is the situation – e.g., increased temperatures cause increased CO2 levels. The latter actually makes far mor e sense. Why? Because as temperatures rise, the oceans will off gas more CO2. Reconstruc tions also seem to show CO2 lagging temperature increases, rather than leading them. Also, ask yourself this – if increased CO2 causes significant temperature increases, how did temperature s in the past turn around and drop, even into ice ages? What, historically, would have allowed temper atures to drop during high CO2 levels? Or, another scenario, what histrorically would have c aused CO2 levels to Page 24 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/drop, if the sensitivities and forcings are all such that we risk runaway global warming? How

did we get the huge swings in the past before man was emitting any CO2 to speak of?? Until these sorts of questions can be answered with some accuracy and robustness, scientifically, its absurd to try to say there is any substantial or meaninful scientific basis to this entire issue. Sure, there are various research papers, with various levels of merit – but there is nowhere near the body of scientific evidence to even begin to go down this road – let alone speeding along it far down the line at 200 mph as we’ve been with AGW in the last number of years. From the USA government ALONE, $79 BILLION has been spent on AGW res earch and so on. I don’t think that even includes the $6 or $7 Billion given to one of the maj or car companies this year to retool to be CO2 and green friendly, and somewhat lower sum s to the other brand. That’s insanity; Just think what could have been directly accomplished to the good of huge numbers of people with that money. Not to mention the large numbers harmed, even killed, by food prices being doubled in many of the poorest countries because of the agric ultural products diverted to bio-fuels – which, as it turns out, if you actually calcul ate the CO2 footprint, aren’t any better than just burning the fossil fuels!! Not to mention that CO2 levels have been vastly higher in the past than t hey are today – much of our evolution was under higher CO2 levels. Current day plants grown in gree nhouses grow far better when they increase the CO2 levels up tp 1000 ppm – above that t hey still grow very well, just not any better than at 1000 ppm, so there’s no point in pumping the level up higher. What does this imply? That there’s no problem with higher levels, fa r higher levels than we are in today, in terms of biological organisms. Which makes sense, consider ing our evolutionary history. Historically, some of the most lush, most biologically abundant, diverse, and robust times were when both temperatures and CO2 levels were far higher than today. In the recent history, some of the most rapid advancement in agricultur e, technology, living standards, nutrition, were all during times when temperatures were HIGHER than they currently are today. The IPCC is a political body that is agenda based – what agenda? To m ove environmentalism and themselves into a position of world power and global governance. You can ea sily find this information if you just research the foundation of these groups and how the I PCC works. Nonscientists write the summaries and often significantly change whatthe scientists have prepared. That’s NOT peer reviewed, and that’s NOT science. Reply 30 11 2009 The Blackboard » Does refusing 2% of data matter? (16:38:23) : [...] containing station data, but to discover that part of the 2% inf ormation kept secret is the list of stations actually used to create the CRU data product. While the intentionally withheld information may [...] Reply 29 11 2009 uberVU - social comments (00:31:05) : Social comments and analytics for this post... Page 25 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/This post was mentioned on Twitter by calamitology: Climate scienc e – nice essay using CRU

emails shows contempt by many scientists for the pillar of replicability http://bit.ly/87GL2j..

. Reply 28 11 2009 Jack Rail (18:01:32) : These are the same scurrilous tactics used by the gun grabbers here in the US. And the global warmers. And whatever other Far Left cause you can name. Their da ta always “got destroyed in a fire” or “washed away in a flood.” These people do not play by the rules. They are convinced they’re above the rul es, smarter than the rest of us and snootily beyond our reach. Anyone who refuses to share dat a paid for by the taxpayers should go to jail. Reply 28 11 2009 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion | Global Warmin g Skeptics (16:35:12) : [...] LINK AKPC_IDS += "3056,";Popularity: unranked [?] (No Ratings Yet) Loading ... [...] Reply 28 11 2009 Discussion of CRU Materials « Daily News (15:22:09) : [...] Willis Eschenbach on his attempts to use the Freedom Of Inf ormation Act to access CRU data and model [...] Reply 28 11 2009 B.S. FootprintTM (08:53:29) : Peering Behind the Curtain: UEA CRU and FOIA requests.... Sad to say, it’s starting to look like things aren’t looking so good surrounding the UEA CRU hacked email and data. Here’s a narrative of events surrounding repeat ed (and rejected) FOI requests for data and program code needed to reproduce the resul... Reply 27 11 2009 bielie (20:00:34) : Willis This is not hyperbole. You and a handful of other good men may have saved the worl d. Now you need to go to Copenhagen and tell those idiots the truth. Page 26 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/I bow to you Sir, you deserve it.

Bielie Reply 27 11 2009 Dweb | Blog » Curioso incidente sulla via per... IV (16:26:38) : [...] segreta come la lista delle stazioni utilizzate (guar dati il blog di Willis Eschenbach che ho ospitato l’altro ieri) e adducendo questioni di IPR, sai che [...] Reply 27 11 2009 Ron (09:25:53) : I cannot even believe all the data and models aren’t in the public domai n already since the politicians are rushing to get global taxation in place. It is amazi ng it has all been on faith. I never believed the models could work but I can’t believe even that data has been a secret. What a bunch of baloney. Is that a scientific term? These guys remind me of that old comedian Professor Erwin Correy who used to use fake words and mumbles to confuse people. Reply 27 11 2009 Philip (05:36:46) : Dear Mr. Eschenbach, Thank you so much for your work on this and your tenacity. Most appreciated. Philip Reply 27 11 2009 Climate Gate (02:52:38) : [...] Eschenbach http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history-of

foi-evasion/

[...] Reply 27 11 2009 FM newswire for 27 November, hot articles for your morning readi ng « Fabius Maximus (00:03:28) : [...] “Freedom of information, my okole...“, Willis Eschenbach, Clima te Change, 24 November 2009 — Another excellent narrative of the climate change debate, using the hacked CRU emails to filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in the debate. True believers will avoid this like vampires do garlic. [ ...] Page 27 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Reply

26 11 2009 Graham (22:05:07) : quote: “The first reference to Freedom of Information in their emails is from 2005, before they had received a single request.” That would make sense, since the UK FOIA was first introduced in January of (you guessed it).. 2005. Back then, every scientist in the country was talking about t he FOIA and how they could protect their research from it. Reply 26 11 2009 ClimateGate: Had It Been For AGW Believers, Enron Would Stil l Be In Business « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE (08:14:21) : [...] and Knowledge Transfer of the UEA, quoted yesterday by Willis Eschenbach in a comment to his “Freedom of information, my okole...“: The University [of East Angl ia, home of the CRU] takes its responsibilities under the [...] Reply 26 11 2009 Willis Eschenbach (07:38:27) : Ryan (02:05:16) : Is this not the data you’re looking for: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/ Reply Ryan, thanks for the question. I wish it were that easy. What you have linked to is the result of their (unknown) mathematical operations on the raw data. What we are still missing is the raw data, and the computer code that they used to convert the raw data into t he finished products that you reference above.

w. Reply 26 11 2009 Steve Netwriter (05:41:48) : Page 28 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Thank you so much for writing this.

It is truly outstanding, and fascinating, and reveals so much. Steve Reply 26 11 2009 Willis Eschenbach’s FOI Request « Climate Audit – mirror site (04:42:12) : [...] Willis Eschenbach’s account of his FOI request has been publis hed on other blogs (e.g. here ) but I’m re-publishing it because Willis actually sent it t o me first and the events all [...] Reply 26 11 2009 WELCOME TO THE CLIMATEGATE GATEWAY!!! « Oldhardhead's We blog (02:42:46) : [...] Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion [...] Reply 26 11 2009 Ryan (02:05:16) : Is this not the data you’re looking for: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/ Reply 26 11 2009 willard (01:57:23) : Could we read the freedom of Information act requests by Mr. Eschenbac h? Reply 26 11 2009 Hacked Emails from GW Advocacy Group; "Hide the Decline" - P olitics and Other Controversies - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conser vatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 28 - City-Data Forum (00:44:51) : [...] [...] Reply 26 11 2009 Willis Eschenbach (00:00:04) : Page 29 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Well, someone sent me a quote from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-V ice Chancellor for

Research and Knowledge Transfer of the EAU. He said: The University [of East Anglia, home of the CRU] takes its respons ibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all case s, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under eac h particular piece of legislation. Ooooh, I am ashamed to confess it, but I said bad words and forbidden epit hets, it angrified my blood immensely. Now they’ve gone and done it. I expect crooks to be crooks, tha t’s no surprise, I’m not angry at Jones et. al. As long as there is a s ystem, people will try to game it. But I also expect the people in charge to do something when they notice the crooks, not just spout platitudes. So I’ve just sent the following email: Dear Professor Davies: I see that you are quoted regarding the hacked emails as saying “The University [of East Anglia, home of the CRU] takes its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004, and the Data Protection Act 1998 very seriously and has, in all cases, handled and responded to requests in accordance with its obligations under each particular piec e of legislation.” If you believe this, I encourage you to read my account of my experience wi th my FOIA requests to CRU below. I would greatly appreciate a response, particularly if (as I hope) you are actually taking action to insure that the FOI requests are handled properly in fut ure. Many thanks,

w. I attached a copy of my story of my battle with the CRU. I sent copies to the following individuals: To: , Information Commissioner’s Office (responsible for FOI) “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” FOI Officer, UEA “Inglis Kitty Ms (LIB)” FOI Appeals, UEA Justice Department, UK (responsible for the Information Commissione r) CC: Editor, Times of London Editor, New York Times Editor, Daily Mail (UK) Page 30 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Editor, Chicago Tribune

Editor, LA Times Mark Morano, Climate Depot Plus individual copies to the following journalists: George Stephanopoulos, ABC Nightline, ABC Ted Koppel, ABC Jennifer Loven, AP Kathleen Carroll (Executive Editor), AP Larry Margasak, AP Michael Silverman (Managing Editor), AP Michelle DeArmound, AP Nedra Pickler, AP Ron Fournier, AP Sandra Johnson (Washington Bureau Chief), AP Seth Sutel, AP Terry Hunt, AP 48 Hours, CBS 60 Minutes, CBS 60 Minutes II, CBS Bill Plante, CBS CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Dick Meyer (Editorial Director), CBS Early Show, CBS Erin Moriarty, CBS Face The Nation, CBS Mark Knoller, CBS Peter Maer, CBS Sunday Morning, CBS American Morning, CNN Anderson Cooper 360, CNN Bill Schneider, CNN Candy Crowley, CNN Howard Kurtz, CNN In The Money, CNN Jeanne Meserve, CNN Jim Walton (President of CNN News Group), CNN Judy Woodruff, CNN Kyra Phillips, CNN Lou Dobbs, CNN Lou Dobbs, CNN Rick Davis (Executive Vice President – CNN News Standards and Pr actices), CNN At Large with Geraldo Rivera, Fox Brian Wilson, Fox Bulls & Bears, Fox Cashin’In, Fox Cavuto on Business, Fox Forbes on FOX, Fox FOX & Friends, Fox Page 31 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/FOX News Live, Fox

FOX News Sunday, Fox FOX News Watch, Fox FOX Report with Shepard Smith, Fox Hannity & Colmes (Alan Colmes), Fox Hannity & Colmes (Sean Hannity), Fox Heartland w/ John Kasich, Fox James Rosen, Fox Jim Angle, Fox Major Garrett, Fox Molly Henneberg, Fox On the Record with Greta, Fox On the Record with Greta, Fox Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox Studio B with Shepard Smith, Fox The Beltway Boys, Fox The O’Reilly Factor, Fox Viewer Services, Fox War Stories, Fox Wendell Goler, Fox Your World with Neil Cavuto, Fox Alison Stewart, MSNBC Amy Robach, MSNBC Bob Kur, MSNBC Chris Jansing, MSNBC Chris Matthews, MSNBC Contessa Brewer, MSNBC Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Dan Abrams, MSNBC David Schuster, MSNBC Deborah Norville, MSNBC Deborah Norville, MSNBC Dennis Sullivan (Executive Editor – Campaign Coverage), MSNBC Don Imus, MSNBC Don Imus, MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC Imus in the Morning, MSNBC Joe Scarborough, MSNBC Joe Trippi, MSNBC Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Lester Holt, MSNBC Lester Holt Live, MSNBC MSNBC Investigates, MSNBC Randy Meier, MSNBC Richard Kaplan (President), MSNBC Ron Reagan, MSNBC Scarborough Country, MSNBC Dateline, NBC Meet The Press (Tim Russert), NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw, NBC Today Show, NBC Page 32 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/and 75 other overseas journalists.

Professor Palmer has angrified the blood of the wrong man ... Reply 26 11 2009 Andy (06:56:00) : Well done. Thank you for your tenacity. Reply 1 12 2009 Rational Debate (21:44:34) : Hi Willis, I’m curious if you’ve gotten any replies? Reply 25 11 2009 Willis Eschenbach (23:41:25) : ali baba (19:40:55), I fear you are not understanding the problem. You say

While it may (or may not) be true that “it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from [GHCN]“, this is meaningless without an actual list of the sites that Dr. Jones and his team used. Exactly what I said, “an actual list of the sites that Dr. J ones and his team used” are unnecessary to independently replicate the results. Do you know what what replication is? It doesn’t mean to duplicate, i.e. “audit”, which is only useful to confirm fraud. In science, “replicate” means to do the experiment over again. This does not mean to take different data and do different things to it. It means to take the same data , and do the same things the original scientist said he did to it, to see if the results are the same. Unfortunately, without knowing either what data CRU used, or what they did to the data, that is not possible. Since their results can’t be verified, they are not s cientist, merely anecdote. Even if your claim were correct, and what we are talking about we re an audit, which is “only useful to confirm fraud”, what on earth do you think we are dealing with here? Innocent error??? Reply 28 11 2009
encs (17:08:07) : Page 33 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/In science, “replicate” means to do the experiment over again. This doe s not mean to take

different data and do different things to it. It means to take the same dat a, and do the same things the original scientist said he did to it, to see if the results are the same. No, this is high school stuff, you have to independently reproduce the data, whi ch takes work but is obviously much more powerful than your proposal to look over the original sci entist’s shoulder. Science does not advance by zero stand deviations. Reply 28 11 2009 omnologos (17:21:47) : encs – you have still failed to explain why verification and reproduction w ould be mutually exclusive. Besides, is there a way to independently reproduce several decades of measurements, without a good time machine at hand to go back and re-take those measureme nts? 28 11 2009
encs (19:10:40) : I have nothing against verification. Re: replication, though, perhaps I’m not understanding something important, but why do you need a list of sites Dr. Jones and his team used, when you can compil e your own list from the same primary data Jones used, or at least 98% the same? Seems to me if you did that but obtained a different result, then that would be a useful scientific result, provided the data’s statistical treatment was sound. 25 11 2009 Marty (22:25:38) : Everyone has to admit we are back at square one. We don’t KNOW anything other than anecdotally. The data sucks. Much of it wasn’t very good to begin with, but it’s all been so massaged and corrupted without oversight or explanation, it’s now totally unreliable. The models suck. Even with faked-up data and parameters added to force r esults, they can’t replicate the past. And the actual code is kept secret. Any sane person has to look at this and find that there is NO WAY it can justify public policy. We need responsible, honorable scientists, with forensic auditors by the ir side, to go back to original data readings and thoroughly lay out their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss any adjustments in a fully transparent process. We need new modellers to review every line of code to ensure the model s properly implement good science. All parameters need to be justified, all results va lidated. Page 34 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/we need a serious program to collect new data, review it, make a djsutments as required, and

have custody. Not just CO2, but EVERYTHING that we can conceive might affect climate. Then we need honest, competent scientists and technicians to load the va lidated data into the validated models and see what we get. And develop programs to improve teh models and supplement the data, based on the results. This will be expensive and time consuming. But if we think this subjec t worth understanding, there is no alternative. My guess is in about 3-5 years we could be on track with a real program. Anyone who says “It’s too late for that, we can’t wait, the danger is too grave and too imminent,” needs to be reminded that we now know NOTHING, we have t o unlearn the falsehoods we have been fed, and get it right the next time. And, obviously, Mann and Jones and most of the rest of these guys need to be def ending themselves in court and before administrative panels and academic dis ciplinary hearings, while all this is going on. Reply 25 11 2009 Fred2 (21:32:55) : There’s more than one definition of replication, or reproducibility. This Wikipedia entry on reproducibility is helpful. See especially the section on “Reproducible research ” as defined by Jon Claerbout of Standford; He recommends sharing the full computational e nvironment. But I don’t think that definition is universally accepted. Reply 25 11 2009
anon (20:39:00) : One of the documents (the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file) is a THREE Y EAR journal of a CRU programmer describing everything he tried with the data and models in an a ttempt to reproduce existing results CRU had published. Comments in the file make it cl ear that “HARRY” tried FOR THREE YEARS to recreate CRU’s published results AND FA ILED. Do you see the REAL significance of this because it is absolutely f atal to the credibility of anything CRU has produced. What we have here is a documented THREE year effort by a CRU progr ammer, who had access to all the data, access to all the code, access to a ll the people who developed the code and the models and still HE could still NOT duplicate CRU’s OWN results. If he can’t it simply means the CRU’s results cannot be reproduced even by themselves and so t here is no point anyone else even trying — CRU themselves have proven it’s a waste of t ime and so they themselves have proven their own results are plain rubbish. That means any “peer reviewed” document CRU produced along with any other papers that cited the CRU papers are based on data the CRU themselves can’t verify. Page 35 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Besides, the absolutly sorry state of affairs in the data handling a nd software managment the

HARRY_READ_ME.txt reveals, the utter and total mess of CRU dat a and software this document reveals is WHY CRU has not released its data and model s oftware. Given the CRU is one of the most, if not the most cited sources of climate data — upon which trillions of dollars of economic policy is being set, the importance of what the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file reveals becomes scary. A very nice layman’s summary of some of the issues in the HARRY_RE AD_ME.txt can eb found here http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file .html? utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed% 3A+TheDevilsKitchen+%28The+Devil%27s+Kitchen%29&utm_content=Netvibes Reply 25 11 2009 Jeff (20:00:14) : Taking the 5th as it appears the CRU folks have been doing as it concerns their data does not mean we cannot assess their guilt of innocence based on their silence like in a court of law ... In science silence=guilt or fraud ... Reply 25 11 2009 Willis Eschenbach (18:35:33) : encs (17:24:16), you say

... BTW, it is debatable that the replies to your original request wer e “unresponsive.” You were in fact directed to a source of data that was entirely adequate to replicate the results of the paper, which is why people normally request scienti fic data. The poor soul who responded to your original request was naive to the CA mindset of auditing “fraud” (because working scientists are reliant on a networ k of trust and on replication rather than auditing) and charitably inferred a scientif ic intention behind your request. You escalated this cultural difference into a war . You think these emails speak for themselves. Obviously they don’t, in fact ac ademic careers are made and lost in the interpretation of seemingly innocuous text, and a nyway if they spoke for themselves you wouldn’t have to annotate them in the self-s erving way that you do. Absolutely not. That’s the reason I continued. Re-read my responses to C RU. I replied to them: While it may (or may not) be true that “it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from [GHCN]“, this is meaningless without an actual list of the sites that Dr. Jones and his team used. Page 36 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/In the climate science arena, this is called “handwaving”. This means a vague explanation that

explains nothing. Waving your hand at a huge stack of data and saying “I got my dat a from there” is no help in trying to find out if CRU has done their work accura tely. I also pointed out: You are making the rather curious claim that because the data “appea rs” to be out on the web somewhere, there is no need for Dr. Jones to reveal which stations were actually used. The claim is even more baffling since you say that the original data used by CRU is available at the GHCN web site, and then follow tha t with the statement that some of the GHCN data originally came from CRU. Which is the case? Did CRU get the data from GHCN, or did GHCN get the data from CRU? and I had originally asked for the raw station data used to produce the HadCR UT3 dataset to be posted up on the UEA website, or made available in some other form. You refused, saying that the information was available elsewhere on non -UEA websites, which is a valid reason for FOI refusals. I can report that the information requested is not available on non-UEA websites as detailed below. Your most recent letter (Further _information_ letter_final_ 070418_rev01. doc ), however, says that you are unable to identify the locations of the request ed information. Thus, the original reason for refusing to provide station data for HadCRUT3 was invalid. As you can see (I hope), these are non-responsive answers. First the y said the information was available on non-UEA websites. When pressed, they said that they couldn’t actually say which non-UEA websites had the data. Thus, the information was not availabl e at all.

w. Reply 25 11 2009 ali baba (19:40:55) : While it may (or may not) be true that “it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from [GHCN]“, this is meaningless without an actual list of the si tes that Dr. Jones and his team used. Exactly what I said, “an actual list of the sites that Dr. J ones and his team used” are unnecessary to independently replicate the results. Do you know what what replication is? It doesn’t mean to duplicate, i.e. “audit”, which is only useful to confirm fraud. Reply 25 11 2009
encs (19:47:41) : Page 37 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/Oh, sorry, I crossed id’s with one I use on another site.

Reply 25 11 2009 Willis Eschenbach (18:25:38) : Improbable Wizard (12:11:53), you say: You miss my point. I would expect someone to bypass completely this group and do their own work if they think something fishy is going on. I am not convinced that FOI requests are a good way to do things. First, removing bad information from the scientific arena is as i mportant as adding good information. The only way to do this is to investigate what they have done. Second, FOI requests are a terrible way to do things. I don’t like t hem at all. But when CRU/Jones refused to reveal their data, what other choice did I have ? Reply 25 11 2009 Jim Katcavich (17:41:31) : http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-re al-story/2/ Read the whole thing. Fascinating. Money quote below. This is not good — the existing program produces a serious error when it’s run on what is supposed to be the old, working data. Harry presses on, finding a solution to t hat bug, going through many more issues as he tried to recreate the results of these runs for the data from 1901 to 1995. Finally he gives up. He has spoken to someone about what should be done: AGREED APPROACH for cloud (5 Oct 06). For 1901 to 1995 – stay with published data. No clear way to replicate proce ss as undocumented. For 1996 to 2002: 1. convert sun database to pseudo-cloud using the f77 programs; 2. anomalise wrt 96-00 with anomdtb.f; 3. grid using quick_interp_tdm.pro (which will use 6190 norms); 4. calculate (mean9600 – mean6190) for monthly grids, using the published cru_ts_2.0 cloud data; Page 38 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/5. add to gridded data from step 3.

This should approximate the correction needed. Catch that? They couldn’t recreate the results, so they’re going back to their published data for the first 95 years of the 20th century. Only ... Reply 25 11 2009 The Blackboard » CRU Hack News: Ten Links. (17:41:13) : [...] posted a summary of the history of response to FOI and FOI reque sts at CRU posted at Maurice’s. (The history includes reactions of Jones group when FOIA ca me into being before any requests under [...] Reply « Older Comments 

### Leave a comment Name (required) E-mail (required) Website

Submit comment Notify me of follow-up comments via email. Subscribe to this site by email 

## Search the Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

Search Page 39 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/

## Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifica tions of new posts by email.

Sign me up! 

## Maurizio Morabito’s Blogs Maurizio – Omnologos • Maurizio Morabito • Maurizio’s Blog on Ecademy • Omniclimate • Omnologos – Comments • 

## Recent Posts A Genuine (Doom-laden) Website? • In Case You Happened To Think Any Good About The BBC... • Is Anthropogenic CO2 To Blame For Increase In Women’s Breasts? • Peer-Review Flaws, circa 2002 • Climategate: Mr Bean At The UEA • Report From Climategate Guardian Debate with Monbiot, McIntyre, Pe arce, Watson, Keenan and some uea guy • Next Stop, Pyongyang (The New York Times vs. FOI) • Live Microblogging Of McIntyre and Holland At Climategate GWPF London Eve nt • British Manipulation Of Scientific Publishing, circa 1964 • Climategate: Stones That Should Be Left Unturned? • Climategate: It’s Richard Black vs Roger Harrabin, Sir Muir vs Fred Pearce • Of Lords And Sirs, And Climategate Enquiries • Climate: Adulthood (Urgently!) Required • (Bastards!) Mass Manslaughter By AGW (CO2) Obsession • PIG’s Complexity And The Misspelled Swede • 

## Categories
Abrupt 

# AGW Business 

# Catastrophism 

# Climate Change CO2 Emissions Cooling 

# Culture Data Dissent El
Nino/La Nina 

## Freedom GHG 

### global cooling 

# Global Warming Page 40 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/

### greenhouse effect HadCRUT 

## History Humor IPCC 

# Policy Politics 

# Science Skepticism Sun Twitter 

### Warming Younger Dryas 

## Tags
Al Gore Anthony Watts arctic australia 

# BBC BBC bias 

## BBC News 

## BBC Warming bias Climate 

### Climate Change 

## ClimateGate Climate models Climatology CO2 consensus COP15 Copenhagen CRU Economics EU Gavin Schmidt geoengineering Global Cooling Consensus 

### Global Warming IHT IPCC Joe Romm McIntyre Met Office 

### NASA Nature New York Times peer-review Phil Jones 

### Real Climate 

## RealClimate richard black Roger Harrabin Science Scientific American sea ice Snow UK Venus Weather 

## Calendar

M T W T F S S

« Oct Dec » 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 November 2009



## Top Posts
A Genuine (Doom

- laden) Website? • In Case You Happened To Think Any Good About The BBC... • Lonnie G. Thompson's Kilimanjaro Fallacies • Is Anthropogenic CO2 To Blame For Increase In Women ’ s Breasts? • Embarrassing "Skeptical Science" or The Return Of The Aristotelians • Report From Climategate Guardian Debate with Monbiot, McIntyre, Pe arce, Watson, Keenan and some uea guy • About Omniclimate • Live Microblogging Of McIntyre and Holland At Climategate GWPF London Event • Coral Atolls and Sea Level Rise • Two

- Mile

- Deep Antarctic Ice Core Reveals Stupidity of AGW Catastrophism • 

## Twitter Updates Il Sindaco di Sanremo caccia via chi fa uso di droga dal Festival, che dal 2011 cambierà dunque il nome in "Zecchino d'Oro" . 18 minutes ago • Page 41 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/The problem with a mature #democracy is that most grassroot political activists are bonkers

3 hours ago • BP chief offered just 35c$ for every spilled barrel! That's a bargai n! - #oilpocalypse #BP 20 hours ago • Why does the BBC switch to panic mode whenever they should be adding direct l inks to outside sources? http://bit.ly/dAEbML - #BBC 1 day ago • RT @ Laelaps Ok,this is slimy- BBC blogger appears to have copied http://bit.ly/cLwk46 something I wrote last week http://tinyurl.com/32zlflz 5 days ago •

Blog at WordPress.com . Theme: Freshy by Jide

. Page 42 of 42 Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLI

...

7/27/2010 http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis

- vs - the

- cru - a - history

- of

- foi

- evasion/